03a Assignment 3 - Rules 6-12 - Commentary

Topic:
Applicable Provisions: Rules 6-12 (Start) Date:
RULE 6
KINDS OF PLEADINGS
Section 1
Pleadings defined. – Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the
parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.
• The words "for trial" in the former rule were eliminated because there are cases which are decided
without a trial, such as judgments on the pleadings and summary judgments.
Section 2
Pleadings allowed. – The claims of a party are asserted in a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, third
(fourth, etc.)-party complaint, or complaint-in-intervention.
The defenses of a party are alleged in the answer to the pleading asserting a claim against him or her.
An answer may be responded to by a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document
to the answer.
• In the 2019 Amendments, a reply to the answer can be filed only when an actionable document
has been attached to the answer. Previously, a greater latitude was given to the plaintiff to file a
reply.
Section 3
Complaint. – The complaint is the pleading alleging the plaintiff's or claiming party's cause or causes of
action. The names and residences of the plaintiff and defendant must be stated in the complaint.
• A complaint states a cause of action only when it has its three indispensable elements, namely:
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is
created; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not violate such right;
and (3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or
constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain
an action for recovery of damages.
• Under the 1997 Rules of Court, the complaint should contain a concise statement of the ultimate
facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action, not evidentiary facts or legal conclusions. It should
also contain the relief prayed for.
I. Every pleading shall contain ultimate facts and evidentiary matters.
• Under the 2019 Amendments to the Rules on Civil Procedure, every pleading stating a party's
claim or defense must contain not only a statement of the "ultimate facts" but also of "evidentiary
matters" upon which the party relies for his claim or defense.
[Drafted by J. Rementilla] – While all attempts to ensure the accuracy of the reviewer are made, errors (typographical
or not) may have been possibly made. As such, discretion in the use of the reviewer is advised.
II. What Are Ultimate Facts
• Ultimate facts are the essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. A fact is essential if
it cannot be stricken out without leaving the statement of the cause of action inadequate.
• A pleading should state the ultimate facts essential to the rights of action or defense asserted, as
distinguished from mere conclusions of fact, or conclusions of law. General allegations that a
contract is valid or legal, or is just, fair, and reasonable, are mere conclusions of law. Likewise,
allegations that a contract is void, voidable, invalid, illegal, ultra vires, or against public policy,
without stating facts showing its invalidity, are mere conclusions of law.
III. Relief
• It is an axiom in civil procedure that if the relief demanded is not the proper one which may be
granted under the law, it does not characterize or determine the nature of the plaintiff's action, and
that the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled based on the facts alleged by him in his complaint,
although it is not the relief demanded, is what determines the nature of the action. And that is the
reason why it is generally added to prayers for relief, though not necessary, the words "and for
such other relief as the law warrants." or others to the same effect. So, if a plaintiff alleges, for
instance, that the defendant owes the former a certain amount of money and did not pay it at the
time stipulated, and prays that the defendant be sentenced to return a certain personal property to
the plaintiff, such prayer will not make or convert the action of recovery of debt into one of
recovery of personal property, and the court shall grant the proper relief, or sentence the
defendant to pay his debt to the plaintiff.
• Breach of contract may be the cause of action, but not the action or relief itself. According to our
Civil Code, a breach of contract is a cause of action, either for specific performance, or rescission
of the contract. As the plaintiff is entitled only to one of the two reliefs, if he prays that the
defendant be sentenced to perform the obligations imposed upon him by the contract, the action is
specific performance, and if he prays that the contract be rescinded, the plaintiff's action is
rescission.
• In contracts of lease of real estate, if the lessee violates the terms of the contract by his failure to
pay the rent due or to comply with the conditions of the lease, and refuses to vacate or return the
possession of the property leased to the lessor, notwithstanding demand to do so, the action is
illegal detainer if filed within one year, and recovery or restoration of possession if filed after one
year, from demand.
IV. The Names and Residences of the Parties
• The names need not appear in the body of the complaint: it is sufficient if they are stated in the
title. The residences should, of course, be set out in the body of the complaint.
V. Exhibits Not Sufficient
• Exhibits attached to a complaint do not take the place of allegations. They are referred to and
annexed for the purpose merely of supporting the allegations of fact made in the complaint. No
matter how many exhibits may be attached to a complaint and made a part thereof, the pleader
still lies under the duty of alleging in the complaint itself all of the facts necessary to establish his
cause of action, precisely the same as if the exhibits were not attached.
Section 4
Answer. – An answer is a pleading in which a defending party sets forth his or her defenses.
• The answer, aside from ultimate facts and evidentiary matters, shall also allege legal provisions
relied upon for defense.
Section 5
Defenses. – Defenses may either be negative or affirmative.
(a) A negative defense is the specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the pleading of the
claimant essential to his or her cause or causes of action.
(b) An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the
material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery
by him or her. The affirmative defenses include fraud, statute of limitations, re-lease, payment,
illegality, statute of frauds, estoppel, former recovery, discharge in bankruptcy, and any other
matter by way of confession and avoidance.
Affirmative defenses may also include grounds for the dismissal of a complaint, specifically, that the
court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the same
parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment.
I. Additional Affirmative Defenses
• The 2019 Amendments provides for additional affirmative defenses that are also grounds for the
dismissal of a complaint, such as lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, pendency of another
action between the same parties for the same cause (litis pendentia), and bar by a prior judgment
(res judicata).
II. Negative Defense; Two Kinds of Specific Denial
• A specific denial is a negative defense. The two kinds of specific denial are as follows:
1. A defendant specifies each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not admit and,
whenever practicable, sets forth the substance of the matters he relies upon to support his denial,
or if he denies only a part of the averment, he specifies so much of it as is true and denies the
remainder.
2. A defendant states that he does not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of a material averment.
• The defense of denial being a negative defense, if not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, would merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the
testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.
III. Affirmative Defense
• An affirmative defense does not require that the defending party admit, expressly or impliedly, the
material allegations of the complaint. It is an allegation of new matter which, while hypothetically
admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would prevent or bar recovery.
Some of these affirmative defenses are statute of limitations, release, payment, former recovery or
discharge in bankruptcy, and statute of frauds.
IV. Plead Affirmative Defenses with Particularity
• In pleading estoppel, the facts constituting estoppel must be alleged.

• In all averments of fraud and mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be
stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other condition of the mind of a person may
be averred generally.
Section 6
Counterclaim. – A counterclaim is any claim which a defending party may have against an opposing
party.
• The definition of a counterclaim was abbreviated to include any claim which a defending party may
have against an opposing party. The former provision that a counterclaim may exceed the amount
or be different in kind from that sought by the opposing party's claim, was eliminated for being
redundant.
I. Nature of Counterclaim
• A counterclaim is in the nature of a cross-complaint. Although it may be alleged in the answer, it is

not part of the answer. It is a distinct and independent cause of action. Upon its filing, the same
proceedings are had as in the original complaint. Under the 2019 Amendments, it must be
answered within twenty (20) calendar days from service.
• When a counterclaim is properly interposed, the defendant becomes, in respect of the matters he
pleaded, an actor. There will be then two simultaneous actions pending between the same parties
wherein each is at the same time both a plaintiff and a defendant.
Section 7
Compulsory counterclaim. – A compulsory counterclaim is one which, being cognizable by the regular
courts of justice, arises out of or is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject
matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third
parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. Such a counterclaim must be within the jurisdiction
of the court both as to the amount and the nature thereof, except that in an original action before the
Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the amount. A
compulsory counterclaim not raised in the same action is barred, unless otherwise allowed by these
Rules.
I. Requisites of a Compulsory Counterclaim
1. It must arise out of, or be necessarily connected with, the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the opposing party's or co-party's claim;
2. It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction; and
3. The court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim both as to its amount and nature, except that in an
original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of the
amount.
• In the case of an original action before a Regional Trial Court, the counterclaim may be
considered compulsory even if the amount falls within the jurisdiction of a lower court, because the
former is a court of general jurisdiction.
• The rules and jurisprudence do not require that the parties to the counterclaim be the original
parties only. In fact, the presence of third parties is allowed, the only provision being their capacity
to be subjected under the court's juris-diction. As regards the nature of the claims of the parties,
neither is it required that they be of the same nature, only that they arise from the same
transaction or occurrence.
• It is elementary that a defending party's compulsory counterclaim should be interposed at the time
he files his Answer, and that failure to do so shall effectively bar such claim.
• The 2019 Amendments specifically states that a compulsory claim that is not raised in the same
action shall be barred, unless otherwise allowed by the Rules.
II. Example of Counterclaim Not Cognizable by the Regular Courts of Justice
• If the counterclaim is a labor claim, it cannot be interposed as a counterclaim because it is not

cognizable by the regular courts of justice, but by the National Labor Relations Commission.
III. Requisites of a Permissive Counterclaim
1. It has a necessary connection with the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the
opposing party's claim;
2. Even where there is such connection, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim; and
3. It requires for its adjudication the presence of third persons over whom the Court cannot acquire
jurisdiction.
• The rule in permissive counterclaims is that for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction, the
counterclaimant is bound to pay the prescribed docket fees.
IV. Test to Determine Whether Counterclaim is Compulsory or Permissive
1. Are the issues of fact and law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same?
2. Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant's claim, absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule?
3. Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff's claim as well as defendant's
counter-claim?
4. Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim such that the conduct of
separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication of effort
and time by the parties and the court?"
• A positive answer to all four questions would indicate the counterclaim is compulsory.
• The "compelling test of compulsoriness" characterizes a counterclaim as compulsory if there
should exist a "logical relationship" between the main claim and the counterclaim. There exists
such a relationship when conducting separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would
entail substantial duplication of time and effort by the court; when the multiple claims involve the
same factual and legal issues; or when the claims are offshoots of the same basic controversy
between the parties.
Section 8
Cross-claim. – A cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or
occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Such
cross-claim may cover all or part of the original claim.
• The 2019 Amendments makes it clear that the cross-claim may cover all or part of the original
claim.
I. Example of Cross-Claim
• A files suit against B and C to recover on a promissory note signed by B as principal and C as
surety. C should file a cross-claim against B for the whole amount of the note in case he is
sentenced to pay it to A.
II. Propriety of Cross-Claim, How Raised
• The propriety or impropriety of a cross-claim may be raised by means of certiorari where appeal is
not a speedy and adequate remedy.
Section 9
Counter-counterclaims and counter cross-claims. – A counterclaim may be asserted against an original
counter-claimant.
A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.
Section 10
Reply. – All new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted. If the plaintiff wishes to
interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so alleged, such claims shall be set forth in an
amended or supplemental complaint. However, the plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party
attaches an actionable document to his or her answer.
A reply is a pleading, the office or function of which Is to deny, or allege facts in denial or avoidance of
new matters alleged in, or relating to, said actionable document.
In the event of an actionable document attached to the reply, the defendant may file a rejoinder if the
same is based solely on an actionable document.
I. Proper Function of Reply
• Under the amended Section 10, all new matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted.
And if the plaintiff wishes to file any claim that arises from the new matters alleged, the plaintiff will
have to file an amended or supplemental complaint. No reply may be filed by the plaintiff unless
the defending party attaches an actionable document to the answer.
• So, under the amended section, the office or function of a reply is to deny, or allege facts in denial
or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relating to, an actionable document.
II. When Reply is Not Necessary; Amended or Supplemental Complaint
• It is not necessary to file a reply if the only purpose of the plaintiff is to deny the new matters
alleged in the answer, because even if he does not make any reply, all the new matters are
deemed controverted. If he wishes to interpose any claims arising out of the new matters so
alleged, the plaintiff will have to file an amended or supplemental complaint instead.
III. When Reply is Necessary
• Where the defense in the answer is based on an actionable document, a reply specifically denying
it under oath must be made; otherwise, the genuineness and due execution of the document will
be deemed admitted.
IV. When Rejoinder may be Filed
• If an actionable document is attached to the reply filed by the plaintiff, the defendant may file a
rejoinder but only to controvert the actionable document.
V. When Reply is Improper
• A reply to a counterclaim or cross-claim is improper. An answer thereto must be filed instead

within twenty (20) calendar days from service thereof.
Section 11
Third, (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. – A third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint is a claim that a defending
party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third (fourth,
etc.)-party defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, In respect of his or her
opponent's claim.
The third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint shall be denied admission, and the court shall require the
defendant to institute a separate action, where: (a) the third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant cannot be
located within thirty (30) calendar days from the grant of such leave: (b) matters extraneous to the Issue
in the principal case are raised; or (c) the effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy
into the action.
• A third-party complaint may be filed by a defendant, in respect to the complaint; by a plaintiff, in

respect to the counterclaim; or by a co-party, in respect to the cross-claim.
• If a court has jurisdiction over the main action, it has jurisdiction over a third-party complaint which
is ancillary thereto.
• A third-party complaint has to yield to the jurisdiction and venue of the main action.
• A third-party complaint is not proper in an action for declaratory relief.
I. Requisites for a Third-Party Action
1. The party to be impleaded must not yet be a party to the action;

2. The claim against the third-party defendant must belong to the original defendant;
3. The claim of the original defendant against the third-party defendant must be based upon the
plaintiff's claim against the original defendant; and
4. The defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability asserted against
him by the original plaintiff.
II. Nature of a Third-Party Complaint
• The third-party complaint is a procedural device whereby a "third party" who is neither a party nor
privy to the act or deed complained of by the plaintiff, may be brought into the case with leave of
court, by the defendant, who acts as third-party plaintiff to enforce against such third-party
defendant a right for contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or any other relief, in respect of the
plaintiff’s claim.
• The defendant may implead another as third-party defendant (a) on allegation of liability of the
latter to the defendant for contribution, indemnity, subrogation, or any other relief; (b) on the
ground of direct liability of the third-party defendant to the plaintiff; or (c) the liability of the third-
party defendant to both the plaintiff and the defendant.
• The purpose of the provision is to allow a defendant to assert an independent claim against a third
party, which would otherwise be asserted in another action, thus preventing multiplicity of suits. All
the rights of the parties concerned would then be adjudicated in one proceeding. This is a rule of
procedure and does not create a substantial right. Neither does it abridge, enlarge, or nullity the
substantial rights of any litigant. This right to file a third-party complaint against a third-party rests
in the discretion of the trial court. The third-party complaint is actually independent of, separate
and distinct from the plaintiff's complaint, such that were it not for the rule, it would have to be filed
separately from the original complaint
III. Test to Determine Propriety of Third-Party Complaint
• The test to determine whether the claim for indemnity in a third-party complaint "in respect to
plaintiff's claim" is whether it arises out of the same transaction on which the plaintiff's claim is
based, or the third-party's claim, although arising out of another or different contract or transaction,
is connected with the plaintiff's claim.
• According to a case, a test to determine when a third-party defendant may be impleaded is
whether the plaintiff could have joined him originally as defendant. But this could be applied only if
there could be asserted against the defendant as the third-party defendant, jointly and severally or
in the alternative, any right to relief arising out of the same transaction. For example, in an action
against the surety on a bond, the surety may bring in as a third-party defendant, the principal who
agreed to indemnify the surety, because the surety's claim arises out of the same transaction.
• Under Rule 14 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which corresponds to our Rule, the bringing in
of a third-party defendant is proper if he would be liable to the plaintiff or to the defendant for all or
part of the plaintiff's claim against the original defendant, although the third-party defendant's
liability arises out of another transaction. So in a case, it was held that in an action for breach of
contract to render engineering services and to survey a plant, the defendant was allowed to bring
as a third-party defendant, the manufacturer which sold defendant's equipment to the plaintiff.
• Another test, provided for by Section 5, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court, is whether the third-party
defendant may assert any defenses which the third-party plaintiff has or may have to the plaintiff's
claim. If he may properly assert such defenses, then he is a proper third-party defendant;
otherwise, he is not and the claim against him cannot be considered as a third-party complaint.
• A defendant cannot file a third-party complaint in a different capacity in which he is sued;
otherwise, his claim against the third-party defendant would not be in respect to plaintiff's claim.
IV. Leave of Court, How Obtained
• Leave of court to file a third-party complaint may be obtained by motion under Rule 15.
V. Allowance of Third-Party Complaint is Discretionary
• The admission of a third-party complaint lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. If leave
to file a third-party complaint is denied, then the proper remedy is to file a separate case, not to
insist on the admission of the third-party complaint all the way up to the Supreme Court.
VI. Grounds to Deny the Allowance of a Third-Party Complaint
1. The third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant cannot be located within thirty (30) calendar days from the
grant of such leave;
2. Matters extraneous to the issue in the principal case are raised; or
3. The effect would be to introduce a new and separate controversy into the action.
VII. Summons on Third-Party Defendant is Necessary
• Summons must be served, of course, in order to obtain jurisdiction over the third-party defendant.
• To the summons must be attached, aside from a copy of the third-party complaint and order for
appointment of guardian ad litem, if any, a copy of the original complaint, counterclaim or cross-
claim. Although this is no longer expressly required, the requirement is implied from Section 13,
Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules of Court: “A third (fourth,etc.)-party defendant may allege in his answer
his defenses, counterclaims or cross-claims, including such defenses that the third (fourth, etc.)-
party plaintiff may have against the original plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he may also assert a
counterclaim against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim against the third-party
plaintiff."
VIII. Original claimant may amend pleading.
• So, too, although no longer expressly provided, the plaintiff, or the party in respect to whose claim
the third-party complaint was filed, may amend his pleadings to assert against the third-party
defendant any claim which the former might have asserted against the latter had he been joined
originally as a party. The motion to amend may be made under Section 3, Rule 10 of the 2019
Amendments, subject to the limitations provided therein.
• The amendment of the complaint, however, is not necessary where a third-party defendant is
impleaded on the ground of direct liability to the plaintiff. For example, the heirs of the passengers
of a bus that collided with another passenger bus, filed a complaint for damages for breach of a
contract of carriage. The trial court found that the accident was due to the concurrent negligence
of the drivers of the two buses and held both, together with their respective employers, jointly and
severally liable for damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals refused to hold the owner of the
other bus and its driver liable because the plaintiffs did not amend their complaints in the main
action so as 10 assert a claim against the said owner and driver as third-party defendants. But the
Supreme Court held that since the liability of the third-party defendants was already asserted in
the third-party complaint, the amendment of the complaint to assert such liability was merely a
matter of form.
• Moreover, it is immaterial that the third-party plaintiff asserts a cause of action against the third-
party defendant on a theory different from that asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant. The
plaintiff's cause of action may be based on contract of carriage, while the defendant/third-party
plaintiff's cause of action may be based on quasi-delict.
IX. Effect of Adjudication
• When leave to file the third-party complaint is properly granted, the court renders in effect two
judgments in the same case, one on the plaintiff's complaint and the other on the third-party
complaint. When the court finds favorably on both complaints, a judgment is rendered on the
principal complaint in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, and another judgment is
rendered on the third-party complaint in favor of the defendant as third-party plaintiff, ordering the
third-party defendant to reimburse the defendant whatever amount said defendant is ordered to
pay plaintiff in the case. Failure of any of said parties in such a case to appeal the judgment as
against him makes such judgment final and executory. If only the third-party defendant files an
appeal, the decision in the main case becomes final.
• And, although again no longer expressly provided, the third-party defendant shall be bound by the
adjudication of the third-party plaintiff's liability to the plaintiff, as well as of his own to the plaintiff
or to the third-party plaintiff.
• It is not even indispensable that the defendant be first adjudged liable to the plaintiff before the
third-party defendant may be held liable to the plaintiff. A person not a party to an action may be
impleaded by the defendant either:
1. On an allegation of liability to the defendant;

2. On the ground of direct liability to the plaintiff; or
3. On both grounds.
• The situation in the first one is covered by the phrase "for contribution, indemnity or subrogation;"
while the second and third are subsumed under the catch-all "or any other relief, in respect of his
opponent's claim."
X. Effect of Dismissal of Complaint on Third-Party Complaint
• If the complaint is dismissed, the third-party complaint will also necessarily be dismissed. If the
plaintiff appeals, the third-party plaintiff should also appeal as a prudent step, so that in the event
the appellate court reverses the decision and renders judgment against the defendant, judgment
could also be rendered against the third-party defendants.
XI. Cross-Claim versus Counterclaim versus Third-Party Complaint
• A cross-claim is against a co-party. It must arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim therein.
• A counterclaim is against an opposing party. It may arise out of or be necessarily connected with
the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim, in which
case, it is called a compulsory counterclaim; or it may not, in which case, it is called a permissive
counterclaim.
• A third-party complaint is against a person not a party to the action. It must be in respect of the
opponent's claim.
Section 12
Bringing new parties. – When the presence of parties other than those to the original action is required
for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall
order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over them can be obtained.
I. Versus Third-Party Complaint
• The bringing in of a new party under this section should be distinguished from a third-party
complaint under Section 11. A third-party complaint is proper when not one of the third-party
defendants therein is a party to the main action. But if one or more of the defendants in a
counterclaim or cross-claim is already a party to the action, then the other necessary parties may
be brought in under this section.
Section 13
Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party com-plaint. - A third (fourth, etc.)-party defendant may allege in his or
her answer his or her defenses, counterclaims or cross-claims, including such defenses that the third
(fourth, etc.)-party plaintiff may have against the original plaintiff's claim. In proper cases, he or she may
also assert a counterclaim against the original plaintiff in respect of the latter's claim against the third-
party plaintiff.
• For example, a reinsurer (against whom a third-party complaint has been filed by the defendant
insurer) may set up in his answer the defense alleged by the defendant insurer that the loss was
caused by the willful act or connivance of the plaintiff insured. However, the third-party defendant
reinsurer may not ordinarily file a counterclaim against the plaintiff, there being no privity of
contract between them.
• If a complaint is filed against the surety on a promissory note executed jointly and severally by the
surety and the principal debtor, the surety may file a third-party complaint against the principal
debtor and the latter may assert a counterclaim against the plaintiff.
RULE 7
PARTS AND CONTENTS OF A PLEADING
Section 1
Caption. – The caption sets forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and the docket number if
assigned.
The title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be named in the original
complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the first party on
each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are other parties.
Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.
• Only the complaint or petition (or any initiatory pleading) should include the names of all the
parties. In subsequent pleadings, it is enough to state the name of the first party on each side,
indicating the other parties, if any, by the proper abbreviated form. The usual forms are "et al." or
"etc."
• The names of all the parties in an appeal shall also be indicated in a notice of appeal and record
on appeal.
• The respective participation in the case of the parties shall also be indicated, which would be as
plaintiff, defendant, intervenor, etc.
Section 2
The body. – The body of the pleading sets forth its designation, the allegations of the party's claims or
defenses, the relief prayed for, and the date of the pleading.
(a) Paragraphs. – The allegations in the body of a pleading shall be divided into paragraphs so
numbered to be readily identified, each of which shall contain a statement of a single set of
circumstances so far as that can be done with convenience. A paragraph may be referred to by
its number in all succeeding pleadings.
(b) Headings. – When two or more causes of action are joined, the statement of the first shall be
prefaced by the words "first cause of action," of the second by "second cause of action", and so
on for the others.
When one or more paragraphs in the answer are addressed to one of several causes of action in
the complaint, they shall be prefaced by the words "answer to the first cause of action" or "answer
to the second cause of action" and so on; and when one or more paragraphs of the answer are
addressed to several causes of action, they shall be prefaced by words to that effect.
(c) Relief. – The pleading shall specify the relief sought, but it may add a general prayer for such
further or other relief as may be deemed just or equitable.
(d) Date. – Every pleading shall be dated.
I. Allegations by Express Reference
• Each cause of action must contain all of the essential facts necessary to constitute a cause of
action, but where a complaint contains two or more causes of action, allegations contained in one
cause may be incorporated in the other by express reference without the necessity of rewriting the
same in the second cause.
Section 3
Signature and address. –
(a) Every pleading and other written submissions to the court must be signed by the party or counsel
representing him or her.
(b) The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him or her that he or she has read the
pleading and document; that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed
after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
1. It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
2. The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or juris:
prudence, or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing
jurisprudence;
3. The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have
evidentiary support after availment of the modes of discovery under these rules; and
4. The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so
identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
(c) If the court determines, on motion or motu proprio and after notice and hearing, that this rule has
been violated, it may impose an appropriate sanction or refer such violation to the proper office
for disciplinary action, on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule, or is responsible
for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly and severally
liable for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee. The sanction may include,
but shall not be limited to, non-monetary directive or sanction; an order to pay a penalty in court:
or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the
movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from
the violation, including attorney's fees for the filing of the motion for sanction. The lawyer or law
firm cannot pass on the monetary penalty to the client.
• The former rule that every pleading of a party represented by a counsel shall be signed by the
counsel is modified by allowing a party to sign a pleading even if he is represented by a counsel.
• Nevertheless, the pleading must contain the assurance of both the party and the counsel that the
suit was not commenced for an improper purpose, that the legal contentions are not frivolous, that
the factual contentions are supported by evidence, and that the denials of factual contentions are
supported by evidence or reasonably based on belief or a lack of information. The amended
Section 3 expressly provides a sanction against the counsel and the law firm which may be held
jointly and severally liable with its partner, associate or employee for violation of the rule.
• The amended section deletes the paragraph on unsigned pleading, but it is believed that the
deleted provision remains applicable.
Section 4
Verification. – Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under
oath or verified.
A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said verification. The
authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary's certificate or a
special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading, and shall allege the following attestations:
(a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on his or her personal knowledge, or
based on authentic documents;
(b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation; and
(c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identi: fied, will
likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in
the pleading.
A pleading required to be verified that contains a verification based on "information and belief," or upon
"knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned
pleading.
I. Affiant should be duly authorized to sign the verification.
• The amended Section 4 requires that the affiant should be duly authorized to sign the verification.
The authorization should be in the form of a secretary's certificate or a special power of attorney
which should be attached to the pleading.
II. Contents of the Verification
• The verification shall have the following attestations:
1. The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on the affiant's personal knowledge, or
based on authentic documents;
2. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation; and
3. The factual allegations in the pleading have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will
likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
III. Significance of Affiant’s Signature
• By signing, the affiant further attests to the truthfulness of the allegations in the pleading.
• "Personal knowledge" and "authentic records" need not concur in a verification as they are to be
taken separately. That the verification of the complaint does not include the phrase "or based on
authentic records" does not make the verification defective. Notably, the provision used the
disjunctive word "or." The word "or" is a disjunctive article indicating an alternative.
• It is not necessary to use the reglementary phrase "true of his own knowledge" if that is logically
inferable, especially if the plaintiff is a party and it does not appear that he is verifying upon
information and belief. Moreover, the requirement regarding verification is merely formal, not
jurisdictional.
• A pleading, therefore, wherein the verification is merely based on the party's knowledge and belief
produces no legal effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to be
remedied.
• A pleading with a defective verification shall be treated as unsigned pleading which the court may,
in its discretion, allow to be remedied if it shall appear that the same was due to mere
inadvertence and not intended for delay.
• Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition have been made
in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely speculative. Noncompliance with the
verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective, and is
substantially complied with when signed by one who has ample knowledge of the truth of the
allegations in the complaint or petition, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made
in good faith or are true and correct.
IV. Basis of Verification
• The veracity of allegations in a pleading may be affirmed based on either one's personal
knowledge, or on authentic records, or both, as warranted. The use of the preposition "or"
connotes that either source qualifies as a sufficient basis for verification and, needless to state, the
concurrence of both sources is more than sufficient.
• As a basis for verification, "authentic records" bears significance in petitions wherein the greater
portions of the allegations are based on the records of the proceedings in the court of origin and/or
the court a quo, and not solely on the personal knowledge of the petitioner. To illustrate, petitioner
himself could not have affirmed, based on his personal knowledge, the truthfulness of his
statement in his petition before the Court of Appeals that respondent admitted at the pre-trial
conference that he received the letter of demand because petitioner was not present during the
conference. Petitioner needed to rely on the records to confirm veracity.
• The party need not sign the verification. A party's representative, lawyer or any person who
personally knows the truth of the facts alleged in the pleading may sign the verification. Under the
amended section, the affiant must be duly authorized and the authorization must be attached to
the pleading.
• A verification signed without an authority from the board of directors is defective. However, the
requirement of verification is simply a condition affecting the form of the pleading and non-
compliance does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may in fact order
the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or, it may act on the pleading although it may
not have been verified, where it is made evident that strict compliance with the rules may be
dispensed with so that the ends of justice may be served.
Section 5
Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith:
(a) that he or she has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his or her knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein;
(b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof;
and
(c) if he or she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he or she shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court
wherein his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
(d) The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary's
certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-
compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his or her
counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary
dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions.
• The requirement of a Certification against Forum Shopping is based on Administrative Circular No.
04-94. The Circular is mandatory; however, it is not jurisdictional. Substantial compliance with the
Circular is sufficient. Thus, although the certification was not filed simultaneously with the initiatory
pleading, its filing within the reglementary period was a substantial compliance with the Circular.
• The Circular is also applicable in election cases.
• In a case, the Court said that election cases are subject to the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
Hence, the Rules of Civil Procedure apply only by analogy or in a suppletory character and
whenever practicable and convenient.
• Applying the Rules of Procedure suppletorily, the failure to comply with the non-forum shopping
requirements of Section 5, Rule 7 does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the case with
prejudice. Accordingly, the trial court found it just and proper not to dismiss the case as the strict
application of the non-forum shopping rule would not work to the best interest of the parties and
the electorate.
• The Court has also stressed that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and
facilitate the orderly administration of justice and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute
literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial
compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the
requirement of strict compliance with the provisions regarding the certification of non-forum
shopping merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether
dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. Thus, under justifiable circumstances,
the Court has relaxed the rule requiring the submission of such certification considering that
although it is obligatory, it is not jurisdictional.
I. Forum Shopping
• Forum shopping consists of filing multiple suits in different courts, either simultaneously or
successively, involving the same parties, to ask the courts to rule on the same or related causes
and/or to grant the same or substantially same reliefs. The Supreme Court has condemned this
practice as it creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different for a
upon the same issue.
II. Test to Determine Forum Shopping
• The test in determining the presence of forum-shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases
pending, there is identity of (a) parties, (b) rights or causes of action, arid (c) reliefs sought.
III. Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping should be signed by the party, not by the counsel.
• The certificate of non-forum shopping should be signed by the party, not his counsel, because he
is in the best position to know whether or not he has initiated similar actions or proceedings in
different courts or tribunals. Even his counsel may be unaware of such facts. Where the petitioner
is a corporation, the certification against forum shopping should be signed by its duly authorized
director or representative. If the real party-in-interest is a corporate body, an officer of the
corporation can sign the certification against forum shopping as long as he is authorized by a
resolution of its board of directors.
• A resident agent of a foreign corporation with license to do business in the Philippines must still be
specifically authorized by board resolution to sign the certificate against forum shopping for his
principal. While he may be aware of actions filed against his principal because he is authorized to
receive, for and in behalf of the foreign corporation, services and other legal processes in all
actions and other legal proceedings against such corporation, he may not be aware of actions
initiated by the principal, whether in the Philippines against a domestic corporation or private
individual, or in the country where such corporation was organized and registered, against a
Philippine registered corporation or a Filipino citizen.
• As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in
verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless
there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special
circumstances or compelling reasons." Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of the Court, requires that
the certification should be signed by the "petitioner or principal party" himself. The rationale behind
this is "because only the petitioner himself has actual knowledge of whether or not he has initiated
similar actions or proceedings indifferent courts or agencies.
• The requirement that the certification of non-forum shopping should be executed and signed by
the plaintiff or principal means that counsel cannot sign said certification unless clothed with
special authority to do so. The reason for this is that the plaintiff or principal knows better than
anyone else whether a petition has previously been filed involving the same case or substantially
the same issues. Hence, a certification signed by counsel alone is defective and constitutes a
valid cause for dismissal of the petition. In the case of natural persons, the Rule requires the
parties themselves to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping However, in the case of the
corporations, the physical act of signing may be performed, on behalf of the corporate entity, only
by specifically authorized individuals for the simple reason that corporations, as artificial persons,
cannot personally do the task themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that obedience to the
requirements of procedural rules is needed if we are to expect fair results therefrom. Utter
disregard of the rules cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction.
IV. When Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping Not Required
• Certificate of non-forum shopping is not required in a compulsory counterclaim.

• A petition for writ of possession under Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is not a complaint or initiatory
pleading. Although denominated as a petition, it is, nonetheless, a motion. Thus, it does not
require a certification against forum shopping.
V. Non-Compliance or Defect in Verification Distinguished from Non-Compliance or Defect in

Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
• In a case, the Supreme Court en ban issued the following guidelines respecting non-compliance
with the requirements on, or submission of, defective verification and certification against forum
shopping:
1. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the
pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading
if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with
in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.
2. As to certification against forum shopping, noncompliance therewith or a defect therein is
generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to
relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or
compelling reasons."
3. Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear
to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters
alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.
4. The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all plaintiffs or petitioners in a case;
otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or
justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common
interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the
certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.
5. The certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his
counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he
must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.
• Under the amended Section 5, the authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether
in the form of a secretary's certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the
pleading.
Section 6
Contents. – Every pleading stating a party's claims or defenses shall in addition to those mandated by
Section 2, Rule 7, state the following:
(a) Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a party's claim or defense;
(b) Summary of the witnesses' intended testimonies, provided that the judicial affidavits of said
witnesses shall be attached to the pleading and form an integral part thereof. Only witnesses
whose judicial affidavits are attached to the pleading shall be presented by the parties during trial.
Except if a party presents meritorious reasons as basis for the admission of additional wit:
nesses, no other witness or affidavit shall be heard or admitted by the court; and
(c) Documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations contained in the pleading.
• The 2019 Amendments introduced this new section. It ushers in the shift from a statement of only
ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action to a statement not only of ultimate facts but
also of evidence upon which a party relies for his or her claim or defense.
• The above contents were previously required to be contained in the pre-trial brief only. The
objective of this new section is to lay cards on the table at the earliest opportunity to avoid or cut
delay and facilitate the speedy resolution of cases.
• The statement of evidence shall include the following:
1. Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a party's claim or defense;

2. Summary of the witnesses' intended testimonies, and the judicial affidavits of said witnesses
shall be attached to the pleading and form an integral part thereof; and
3. Documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations contained in the pleading.
RULE 8
MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS
Section 1
In general. – Every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical form, a plan, concise and direct
statement of the ultimate facts, Including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his claim or
defense, as the case may be.
If a cause of action or defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof and their
applicability to him or her shall be clearly and concisely stated.
I. Ultimate Facts, Evidence, and Law
• Under the 1997 Rules of Court, the complaint must allege only ultimate facts, while the answer
may also cite legal provisions relied upon aside from the ultimate facts constituting the defense.
• Under the amended Section 1 of Rule 8, a party must allege the ultimate facts including the
evidence constituting his or her claim or defense, as well as the pertinent provisions of law.
Section 2
Alternative causes of action or defenses. – A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or
defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of action or defense or in separate causes of
action or defenses. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them If made
independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or
more of the alternative statements.
I. Alternative Causes of Action or Defenses versus Alternative Reliefs
• Alternative causes of action or defenses should be distinguished from alternative reliefs. A single
cause of action may entitle a party to two alternative reliefs. For example, a breach of contract
entitles the plaintiff to either specific performance or rescission. Alternative statements may be
made either in one cause of action or defense or in separate causes of action or defenses.
II. Alternative Allegations
• There are cases where facts, essential to the plaintiff's cause of action, are within the knowledge
of the defendant, but of which the plaintiff is so imperfectly informed that he cannot state them with
certainty, even on information and belief. He may, however, know that one out of two or more sets
of facts is true without knowing which of them is true. In such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot,
of course, state any of the facts with certainty and it stands to reason that he cannot be required to
plead with certainty facts which he does not definitely believe to be true. But the facts being
essential to his cause of action, he must state them in one form or another and cannot very well
file his complaint before so doing. And if he cannot file his complaint, he cannot avail himself of the
remedy provided in Rule 23 of the Rules of Court. It seems clear that, in such a case, the proper
procedure is for the plaintiff to state the facts within his knowledge with certainty, but to plead in
the alternative those, to him, doubtful facts, which are wholly within the defendant's knowledge,
and call upon the defendant to make a full disclosure of these facts.
• The inclusion of the averment for quasi-delict, while incompatible with the other claim under the
contract of carriage, is permissible under Section 2 of Rule 8, which allows a plaintiff to allege
causes of action in the alternative, be they compatible with each other or not, to the end that the
real matter in controversy may be resolved and determined.
III. Hypothetical Allegations
• Example: The defendant alleges that he was induced to execute the contract by fraud, but,
assuming the contract to be valid, the action had already prescribed.
IV. Inconsistent Defenses
• A defendant may plead as many defenses and counterclaims as he may have. He has a right to
set up negative defenses in one cause of action and affirmative defenses in another in the same
action, and the affirmative matter in a separate defense does not operate as a waiver or
withdrawal of a defense in another portion of his answer. These different defenses may be
inconsistent with each other, but it is sufficient that each is consistent with itself.
Section 3
Conditions precedent. – In any pleading a general averment of the performance or occurrence of all
conditions precedent shall be sufficient.
I. Attempt to Compromise a Condition Precedent
• There should be an averment in the complaint that earnest efforts toward a compromise have
been made, pursuant to Article 222 of the Civil Code of the Philippines for it is well-settled that the
attempt to compromise as well as the inability to succeed is a condition precedent to the filing of a
suit between members of the same family. Failure to do so makes the complaint defective and the
vice may be assailable at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal, for lack of cause of
action.
• Also, compliance with the conciliation process at the barangay level under The Local Government
Code of 1991 is a condition precedent, the compliance with which should be averred in the
complaint. Otherwise, the complaint becomes vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of lack of
cause of action.
• It must be noted that the 2019 Amendments has deleted the provisions on Motion to Dismiss
under Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Court. And neither lack of cause of action nor non-compliance
with a condition precedent are grounds for a motion to dismiss under the new Section 12(a), Rule
15 of the 2019 Amendments. However, under the new Section 12 of Rule 8, non-compliance with
a condition precedent is one of the affirmative defenses that the court shall mot proprio resolve
within thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of the answer. So, if a condition precedent for filing a
claim has not been complied with, this matter has to be alleged in the answer as an affirmative
defense, not in a motion to dismiss.
Section 4
Capacity. – Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or the authority of a party to sue or
be sued in a representative capacity or the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is
made a party, must be averred. A party desiring to raise an issue as to the legal existence of any party
or the capacity of any party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity, shall do so by specific denial,
which shall include such supporting particulars as are peculiarly within the pleader's knowledge.
I. Capacity to Sue or be Sued
• In order to maintain an action in court, the plaintiff must have an actual legal existence, that is, he
or she must be a person in law and possessed of a legal entity as either a natural or artificial
person.
• The party bringing the suit has the burden of proving the sufficiency of the representative
character that he claims. If a complaint is filed by one who claims to represent a party as plaintiff
but who, in fact, is not authorized to do so, such complaint is not deemed filed and the court does
not acquire jurisdiction over the complaint. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal
effect.
• The fact that a foreign corporation has a license to do business in the Philippines or that it is not
doing business in the country must be affirmatively pleaded.
• No foreign corporation transacting business in the Philippines without a license, or its successors
or assigns, shall be permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any
court or administrative agency of the Philippines; but such corporations may be sued or proceeded
against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action recognized
under Philippine laws.
II. Specific Negative Averment or Specific Denial
• If the defendant wishes to raise an issue as to the plaintiff's legal capacity to sue, he may raise it
in his or her answer as affirmative defense.
• On the other hand, if the defendant wishes to raise an issue as to his legal capacity to be sued, he
may question the jurisdiction of the court over his person.
• In either case, the defendant may deny the allegation of capacity.
Section 5
Fraud, mistake, condition of the mind. – In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge or other
condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally.
• Deceit, machination, false pretenses, misrepresentation, and threats are largely conclusions of law
and mere allegations thereof without a statement of the facts to which such terms have reference
are not sufficient. It is proper for the trial court to grant a defendant's motion for bill of particulars,
and when plaintiff fails to comply with the order, the trial court may correctly dismiss the complaint.
• The heed for an affidavit of merit is consistent with Rule 8, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, which requires that "in all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. "
Section 6
Judgment. – In pleading a judgment or decision of a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial
tribunal, or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or decision without setting forth
matter showing jurisdiction to render it. An authenticated copy of the judgment or decision shall be
attached to the pleading.
• Under this provision, the jurisdiction of the court a quo is presumed. But the amended Section 6
requires that an authenticated copy of the judgment or decision be attached to the pleading.
• In 2019, the Apostille Convention on Authentication of Documents took effect in the Philippines.
Under this convention, in countries and territories which are Apostille-contracting parties, there is
no need for authentication of the relevant judgment or decision, as it is sufficient to have the same
Apostillized in the place where the document originates. However, in countries and territories
which are non Apostille-contracting parties, the previous process of authentication must be
complied with.
• The Apostille streamlines the whole authentication procedure of documents for use abroad
resulting to more convenience, less cost and processing time for the applicants. Before Apostille,
a Philippine document to be used abroad needs a Certification by the relevant government agency
or office, Authentication by the DA and Authentication (Legalization) by the Embassy or Consulate
of the country of destination.
• With the Apostille, the aforementioned document will no longer require legalization by the Foreign
Embassy or Consulate if the country of destination is also an Apostille country.
Section 7
Action or defense based on document. – Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written
instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the
pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall
be deemed to be a part of the pleading.
• This provision is applicable when either the cause of action or the defense is based or founded
upon a written document. For example, where the defense is anchored on a deed of sale, the
plaintiff must deny its due execution under oath if the plaintiff's theory is that he has never
disposed of his property.
I. Actionable Document; How Pleaded
• An actionable document is a written instrument or document on which an action or defense is

founded.
• Under the amended Section 7, the only way to plead an actionable document is by setting forth
the substance of such document in the pleading and attaching the document thereto as an exhibit
which shall be considered as part of the pleading.
• Under the 1997 Rules of Court, there was another way to plead which was to set forth the
document verbatim in the pleading, but this has been deleted in the amended section.
II. Examples of Actionable Documents
• A promissory note in an action to collect the amount thereof.

• A deed of real estate mortgage in an action to foreclose the mortgage.
• A written contract in an action to enforce or rescind the same.
Section 8
How to contest such documents. – When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument,
copied in or attached to the corresponding pleadings as provided in the preceding section, the
genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party,
under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he or she claims to be the facts: but the
requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the
instrument or when compliance with an order for an Inspection of the original instrument is refused.
I. Genuineness versus Due Execution
• Genuineness means nothing more than that the instrument is not spurious, counterfeit, or of
different import on its face from the one executed; that the party whose signature it bears really
signed it and that at the time it was signed, it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the
pleading of the party relying upon it.
• Due execution means that if signed by an agent, it was with the authority of the principal and
where the name of a corporation is signed to the document which is the basis of an action, that
the officer executing the contract had authority to bind the corporation and that the corporation
had the capacity to enter into the contract.
II. How to Deny Genuineness and Due Execution of Actionable Document
• The defendant must declare under oath that he did not sign the document or that it is otherwise
false or fabricated. The statement in the answer to the effect that the instrument was procured by
fraudulent representation does not raise any issue as to its genuineness or due execution.
• On the contrary, such plea is an admission both of the genuineness and due execution thereof
since it seeks to avoid the instrument upon a ground not affecting either.
• To deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document:
1. There must be a specific denial in the responsive pleading of the adverse party;
2. The said pleading must be under oath; and
3. The adverse party must set forth what he claims to be the facts.
• Failure to comply with the prescribed procedure re-suits in the admission of the genuineness and
due execution of the actionable document.
III. A Denial Under Oath that is Deemed a General Denial
• The respondent stated in his Answer that the signature appearing at the back of the promissory
note seemed to be his. He denied any liability on the promissory note as he allegedly did not
receive the amount stated therein, and the loan documents did not express the true intention of
the parties. The respondent reiterated these allegations in his "denial under oath," stating that "the
promissory note sued upon, assuming that it exists and bears the genuine signature of herein
defendant, the same does not bind him and that it did not truly express the real intention of the
parties as stated in the defenses..." The Court held that the respondent did not specifically deny
that he signed the loan documents and that his denials did not constitute an effective specific
denial as contemplated by law; in fact, respondent's allegations amounted to an implied admission
of the due execution and genuineness of the promissory note.
IV. What Admission of Genuineness and Due Execution Means
• The admission of the genuineness and due execution of an instrument means that the party
whose signature it bears admits that he signed it or that it was signed by another for him with his
authority; that at the time it was signed, it was in words and figures exactly as set out in the
pleading of the party relying upon it; that the document was delivered; and that any formal
requisites required by law, such as a seal, an acknowledgment, or revenue stamp, which it lacks,
are waived by him.
• The admission effectively eliminates any defense relating to the authenticity and due execution of
the document, e.g., that the document is spurious, counterfeit, or of different import on its face as
the one executed by the parties; or that the signatures appearing thereon are forgeries; or that the
signatures are unauthorized.
V. Defenses Waived by Admission
1. Forgery of the signature

2. Unauthorized signature, as in the case of an agent signing for his principal, or one signing in
behalf of a partnership or a corporation
3. The corporation was not authorized under its charter to sign the instrument
4. The party charged signed the instrument in some other capacity than that alleged in the pleading
setting it out
5. At the time the document was signed, it was not in words and figures exactly as set out in the
pleading
6. The document was never delivered
VI. Defenses Not Waived
1. Payment
2. Want or illegality of consideration
3. Fraud
4. Mistake
5. Compromise
6. Statute of limitations
7. Estoppel
8. Duress
9. Minority or imbecility
VII. When Specific Denial Need Not be Under Oath
1. When adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument

2. When compliance with an order for the inspection of the original instruments is refused
• Inasmuch as it is sufficient to attach a copy of the instrument to the pleading, it may be necessary
for the adverse party to examine the original in order to verify the genuineness of the signature
and other details. Hence, he may file a motion for production and inspection of the original
instrument in accordance with Rule 27 of the Rules of Court. If the court grants the motion but the
pleader refuses to comply with the order of the court, the adverse party need not make a specific
denial under oath.
VIII. Waiver of Implied Admission
• The plaintiff, after receipt of the answer of the defendant, did not deny under oath the genuineness
and proper insertion of the words "at the will of the parties" in the written contract attached to the
answer. Nevertheless, the defendant, in allowing proof to be presented as to whether the said
words were inserted before or after the contract was signed by the parties and certified to before a
notary public, and as to whether they were inserted with the knowledge of the plaintiff, consented
that the questions should be submitted to the court and waived his right to claim that the phrase
was inserted with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff.
• Where a document is executed by an agent on behalf of his principal, the failure of the principal
(defendant) to deny its authenticity under oath, constitutes an admission of the genuineness and
due execution of the document as well as of the agent's authority to bind the principal. The plaintiff
may, of course, waive the rule and that is what he must be considered to have done by
introducing evidence as to the execution of the document and failing to object to the defendant's
evidence in refutation.
Section 9
Official document or act. – In pleading an official document or official act, it is sufficient to aver that the
document was issued or the act was done in compliance with law.
Section 10
Specific denial. – A defendant must specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he or she
does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the matters upon which he or
she relies to support his or her denial. Where a defendant desires to deny only part of an averment, he
or she shall specify so much of it as is true and material and shall deny only the remainder. Where a
defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material
averment made in the complaint, he or she shall so state, and this shall have the effect of a denial.
I. Rationale and Concept
• The purpose of requiring the defendant to make a specific denial is to make him disclose the
matters alleged in the complaint which he succinctly intends to disprove at the trial, together with
the matter which he relies upon to support the denial. The parties are compelled to lay their cards
on the table.
• A denial is not made specific simply because it is qualified so by the defendant. A general denial
does not become specific by the use of the word "specifically." When matters of which the
defendant alleges to have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief are plainly and
necessarily within the defendant's knowledge, an alleged "ignorance or lack of information" will not
be considered a specific denial. Section 11. Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Court also provides that
material averments in the complaint other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Thus, the answer should be so definite
and certain in its allegations that the pleader's adversary should not be left in doubt as to what is
admitted, what is denied, and what is covered by denials of knowledge as sufficient to form a
belief.
• Section 10 contemplates three modes of specific denial, namely;
1. By specifying each material allegation of fact in the complaint, the truth of which the defendant
does not admit, and whenever practicable, setting forth the substance of the matters which he
will rely upon to support his denial;
2. By specifying the averments in the complaint that are true and material and denying the
remainder; or
3. By stating that the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of a material averment in the complaint.
II. Another Form of Specific Denial; When Considered a Mere General Denial
• An allegation that "defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of a material averment made in the complaint" is a specific denial.
• This form of denial, although allowed by the Rules of Court, must be availed of with sincerity and
in good faith, certainly neither for the purpose of confusing the adverse party as to what
allegations of the complaint are really put in issue nor for the purpose of delay.
• The rule specifically authorizing an answer that defendant has no knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an averment and giving such answer the effect of a
denial, does not apply where the fact as to which want of knowledge is asserted is, to the
knowledge of the court, so plainly and necessarily within the defendant's knowledge that his
averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue.
• An unexplained denial of information within the control of the pleader, or is readily accessible to
him, is evasive and is insufficient to constitute an effective denial.
III. Examples of Denials Not Specific
• Defendant's answer wherein it merely denies generally and specifically each and every allegation
contained in each and every paragraph of the complaint, is but a general denial. It is not a specific
denial under Section 10 of Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, because it does not deal specifically with
each material allegation of fact, nor does it set forth the substance of the matters upon which the
defendant relies to support his denial. It does not serve the purpose of requiring the defendant to
make a specific denial, which is to compel him to specify the matters which he intends to disprove
and disclose the matters upon which he relies to support his denial, thereby limiting the issues and
avoiding unnecessary delays and surprises. Consequently, the trial court, upon motion of the
plaintiff, may render judgment on the pleadings Section 1 of Rule 34 of the Rules of Court
provides that where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment
on such pleading.
• "That without prejudice to filing an amended answer in due time, the defendant hereby denies
generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in the plaintiff's complaint." This
was held to be a general denial and the plaintiff had the right to ask for judgment on the pleadings.
• Defendants denied "generally and specifically each and every other allegation in the complaint,
without prejudice to the filing later on of an amended answer with all the necessary details after
they shall have gathered the corresponding data." This was held to be a general denial, but the
defendants subsequently filed an amended answer with special defenses, which the court
admitted, and the Supreme Court sustained the order of the lower court amendment.
• Defendants answered denying "generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in
each and every paragraph of the plaintiff's' complaint." Upon being informed by the court that this
was a general denial, defendants, with leave of court, filed an amended answer containing a
specific denial.
• However, in a case, the court denied thedefendant's motion to amend its answer which alleged
insufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the non-payment of the loan, and
granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
• A denial is not specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant. A general denial does
not become specific by the use of the word "specifically."
• A denial made without setting forth the substance of the matters relied upon in support of the
denial, even when to so state is practicable, does not amount to a specific denial.
IV. Negative Pregnant is Not a Specific Denial
• Where a fact is alleged with some qualifying or modifying language, and the denial is conjunctive,
a "negative pregnant" exists, and only the qualification or modification is denied, while the fact
itself is admitted. A denial in the form of a negative pregnant is an ambiguous pleading, since it
cannot be ascertained whether it is the fact or only the qualification that is intended to be denied.
• A "negative pregnant" is a denial pregnant with the admission of the substantial facts in the
pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. It is, in effect, an admission of the
averments it was directed at. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of negative
expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to
the adverse party.
V. Immaterial Averments
• Immaterial averments are not deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Example:
Allegations by way of anticipation of defense.
Section 11
Allegations not specifically denied deemed admitted. – Material averments in a pleading asserting a
claim or claims, other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted
when not specifically denied.
• Under the amended Section 11, the material averments that are required to be specifically denied
are those alleged in any pleading asserting a claim or claims, not just in a complaint. So, the
amendment covers the answer, reply, third-party complaint or cross-claim.
I. Liquidated Damages
• If the damages alleged are liquidated or stipulated, they are deemed admitted when not
specifically denied. Under the former rule, all damages alleged were not deemed admitted even if
not specifically denied.
• The provision on allegations of usury being deemed admitted if not denied under oath was deleted
under the amended section.
II. Waiver of Implied Admission
• It is a familiar rule in this jurisdiction that material allegations in the complaint other than those as
to the amount of damages shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. But when a
plaintiff proceeds to trial on the merits, starts the presentation of his evidence upon the complaint
and defective answer thereto, said plaintiff must be deemed to have waived the implied admission
in the answer of the material averments of the complaint, and to have treated said answer as
sufficient to put in issue the said allegations.
III. Effect of Failure to Specifically Deny an Allegation
• A party who fails to specifically deny the material averments in the complaint, other than those as
to the amount of unliquidated damages, is deemed to have admitted the same. Pursuant to
Section 4, Rule 129 of the 1997 Rules of Court, an admission, verbal or written, made by a party
in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.
• Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules also provides that material averments in the complaint other than
those as to the amount of unliquidated damages shall be deemed admitted when not specifically
denied. Thus, the answer should be so definite and certain in its allegations that the pleader's
adversary should not be left in doubt as to what is admitted, what is denied, and what is covered
by denials of knowledge as sufficient to form a belief.
• A specific denial is made by specifying each material allegation of fact, the truth of which the
defendant does not admit and, whenever practicable, setting forth the substance of the matters
upon which he relies to support his denial. The purpose of requiring the defendant to make a
specific denial is to make him disclose the matters alleged in the complaint which he succinctly
intends to disprove at the trial, together with the matter which he relies upon to support the denial.
Section 12
Affirmative defenses. –
(a) A defendant shall raise his or her affirmative defenses in his or her answer, which shall be limited
to the reasons set forth under Section 5(b), Rule 6, and the following grounds:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
2. That venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; and
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
(b) Failure to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver
thereof.
(c) The court shall motu proprio resolve the above affirmative defenses within thirty (30) calendar
days from the filing of the answer.
(d) As to the other affirmative defenses under the first paragraph of Section 5(b). Rule 6, the court
may conduct a summary hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days from the filing of the answer.
Such affirmative defenses shall be resolved by the court within thirty (30) calendar days from the
termination of the summary hearing.
(e) Affirmative defenses, If denied, shall not be the subject of a motion for reconsideration or petition
for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, but may be among the matters to be raised on appeal
after a judgment on the merits.
• This is a new provision added by the 2019 Amendments.
I. Affirmative Defense
• An affirmative defense is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the
material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery.
II. Motu Propio Resolution
• Under the new Section 12, the court shall motu proprio resolve the following affirmative defenses
within thirty (30) calendar days from the filing of the answer:
1. That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party;
2. That venue is improperly laid;
3. That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue;
4. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action: and
5. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with.
III. Summary Hearing
• In addition to the above affirmative defenses, Section 5(b), first paragraph, Rule 6 of the 2019
Amendments enumerates the following affirmative defenses:
1. Fraud;
2. Statute of limitations;
3. Release;
4. Payment;
5. Illegality;
6. Statute of Frauds;
7. Estoppel;
8. Former Recovery;
9. Discharge in Bankruptcy; and
10. Any other matter by way of confession and avoidance.
• Under the new Section 12, the court may conduct a summary hearing on the above affirmative
defenses within fifteen (15) calendar days from the filing of the answer which shall then be
resolved within thirty (30) calendar days from the termination of the summary hearing.
• It must be noted that a motion to hear affirmative defenses is now a prohibited motion under the
amended Section 12(b) of Rule 15.
IV. Grounds for Dismissal of Complaint
• Section 5(b), second paragraph, Rule 6 of the 201 Amendments enumerates the following
affirmative defenses that may be grounds for the dismissal of a complaint:
1. The court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter;

2. There is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; or
3. The action is barred by a prior judgment.
• It must be noted that under the amended Section 12(a) of Rule 15, a motion to dismiss is now a
prohibited motion except on the above-enumerated three grounds.
• To avoid protracted proceedings, affirmative defenses, if denied, shall not be the subject of a
motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus. However, the denial
may be among the matters raised on appeal after a judgment on the merits.
• It must also be noted that a motion for reconsideration of the court's action on the affirmative
defenses is now a prohibited motion.
Section 13
Striking out of pleading or matter contained therein. – Upon motion made by a party before responding
to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these Rules, upon motion made by a party
within twenty (20) calendar days after the service of the pleading upon him or her, or upon the court's
own initiative at any time, the court may order any pleading to be stricken out or that any sham or false,
redundant, immaterial, Impertinent, or scandalous matter be stricken out therefrom.
• Any sham or false, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter may be stricken out
from a pleading upon the motion of a party or upon the court's own initiative.
RULE 9
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD
Section 1
Defenses and objections not pleaded. - Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the
evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there Is another action
pending between the same parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment
or by statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim.
• This provision liberalizes the rule on waiver of defenses. The former rule limited the exceptions to
failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Under this rule,
the exceptions have been increased to four.
I. Purpose of the Rule
• In every action, the parties and their counsel are enjoined to present all available defenses and
objections in order that the matter in issue can finally be laid to rest in an appropriate contest
before the court. Without the rule, there will be no end to a litigation, because the dissatisfied
litigant may simply raise "new" or additional issues in order to prevent, defeat, or delay the
implementation of an already final and executory judgment. The endlessness of litigation can give
rise to added costs for the parties, and can surely contribute to the unwarranted clogging of court
dockets.
II. General Rule
• The general rule is that defenses and objections not raised in a motion to dismiss or in the answer,
are deemed waived.
• This can be illustrated by the new Section 12, Rule 8 which mandates the court motu proprio to
resolve the five (5) affirmative defenses mentioned therein within thirty (30) calendar days from the
filing of the answer, and those under the first paragraph of the amended Section 5(b), Rule 6,
which the court may resolve within thirty (30) days from the termination of the summary hearing
which the court may conduct within fifteen (15) calendar days from the filing of the answer. Failure
to raise the affirmative defenses at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof.
III. Exceptions – When the Court shall Dismiss the Claim Even if Defenses and Objections are Not
Pleaded
1. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter

2. Pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause
3. Bar by prior judgment
4. Statute of limitations
• It may be gleaned from Section 1, Rule 9 that except for the defenses of: (a) lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the case; (b) litis pendentia; (c) res judicata; and/or (d) prescription,
other defenses must be invoked when an answer or a motion to dismiss is filed in order to prevent
a waiver thereof. Otherwise stated, if a defendant fails to raise a defense not specifically excepted
in Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, such
defense shall be deemed waived, and consequently, defendant is already stopped from relying
upon the same in further proceedings.
IV. Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter
• The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be
conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised
at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine, however, has been qualified by
some pronouncements, which stemmed principally from the ruling in a case where the Court held
that the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be considered barred by
estoppel by laches, so that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative
relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction for the first time on appeal or almost fifteen years after the
questioned ruling had been rendered.
• Laches, however, cannot be taken against the petitioners who immediately filed a petition in court
after learning that their title had been cancelled. Moreover, estoppel does not apply to confer
jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action. It is the court's duty to dismiss an
action over which it has no jurisdiction.
• In another case, the Court summarized the rule as follows:
1. Jurisdiction over the person must be seasonably raised, i.e., that it is pleaded in a motion to
dismiss or by way of an affirmative defense in an answer.Voluntary appearance shall be
deemed a waiver of this defense. The assertion, however, of affirmative defenses shall not be
construed as an estoppel or as a waiver of such defense.
2. Where the court itself clearly has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or the nature of the
action, the invocation of this defense may be done at any time. It is neither for the courts nor
the parties to violate or disregard that rule, let alone confer that jurisdiction, this matter being
legislative in character.Barring highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances, neither
estoppel nor waiver shall apply.
• In another case, the Court held that the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subiect matter may
be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal. In fact, the court may
mot proprio dismiss a complaint at any time when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence
on record that lack of jurisdiction exists.
V. Statute of Limitations
• Under the former rule, it was also held that, even if the defense of prescription had not been
raised in a motion to dismiss or an answer, if the plaintiff's complaint or evidence shows that the
action had prescribed, the action shall be dismissed.
• In a case, a dismissal on the ground of prescription was sustained although the defendants, being
in default, could not invoke such defense. The Court held that the rule on waiver does not apply
when the plaintiff's complaint or evidence shows that the cause of action is already barred by
prescription.
Section 2
Compulsory counterclaim, or cross-claim, not set up barred. - A compulsory counterclaim, or a cross-
claim, not set up shall be barred.
I. Compensation for improvements should be pleaded as compulsory counterclaim in an

ejectment suit.
• In an action of ejectment, the defendant was found to be a possessor in bad faith, and judgment
was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the possession of the land. Subsequently, the defendant
brought an action to recover compensation for improvements made on the land. It was held that
the claim for such compensation should have been presented as a counterclaim in the ejectment
suit and the defendant having failed to do so, her claim was barred. It might have been otherwise
had she been a possessor in good faith.
II. Even a possessor in good faith should allege compulsory counterclaim for improvements.
• The contention that, a counterclaim for expenses incurred in clearing and cultivating the parcel of
land and planting coconut and other fruit-bearing trees therein could not have been set up in the
former case because that would have been inconsistent with or would have weakened the claim
that they were entitled to the parcel of the land, is without merit, because "(A) party may set forth
two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one cause of
action or defense." Hence, the plaintiff herein and intervenors in the former case could have set up
the claim that they were entitled to the parcel of the land and alternatively, that assuming
(hypothetically) that they were not entitled to the parcel of the land, at least, they were entitled as
possessors in good faith to the coconut and other fruit-bearing trees or their value.
III. Claim for Attorney’s Fees
• In respect of attorney's fees, where a claim therefor arises out of the filing of the complaint, they
should also be considered as in the nature of a compulsory counterclaim. They should be pleaded
or prayed for in the answer to the complaint in order to be recoverable; otherwise, they would be
barred.
• But a claim against the lawyer of plaintiff cannot be filed as a counterclaim and should be filed in a
separate action.
IV. When Amended Answer is Proper
• An amended answer is proper if the counterclaim or cross-claim already existed at the time the
original answer was filed, but due to oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, it was not set
up.
V. When Supplemental Answer is Proper
• A supplemental answer is proper if the counterclaim or cross-claim matures or is acquired after

the answer is filed.
• In both cases, the amended or supplemental answer must be filed with leave of court before
judgment.
VI. After-acquired Counterclaim May be Alleged in Supplemental Pleading
• An after-acquired counterclaim is not barred even if it is not set up in the previous case as a
counterclaim. An after-acquired counterclaim is one of the recognized exceptions to the general
rule that a counterclaim is compulsory and must be asserted if it arises out of the same
transactions as the opposing party's claim. It may, however, with the court's permission be
included in the same case by way of supplemental pleading before judgment under Section 6,
Rule 10. And the same may be allowed unless the case has progressed so far that it may be
inconvenient or confusing to allow the additional claim to be pleaded
VII. Compulsory counterclaim cures jurisdictional defect, if any, in complaint.
• Although the original claim involves less than the jurisdictional amount, jurisdiction can be
sustained if the compulsory counterclaim – based upon the damages allegedly suffered by the
defendant in consequence of the filing of the complaint – falls within the jurisdictional amount.
Section 3
Default; Declaration of. – If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court
shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure,
declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting
the claimant such relief as his or her pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the
claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.
(a) Effect of order of default. - A party in default shall be entitled to notices of subsequent
proceedings but shall not take part in the trial.
(b) Relief from order of default. - A party declared in default may at any time after notice thereof and
before judgment, file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default upon proper showing
that his or her failure to answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and
that he or she has a meritorious defense. In such case, the order of default may be set aside on
such terms and conditions as the judge may impose in the interest of justice.
(c) Effect of partial default. - When a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action
against several defending parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court
shall try the case against all upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence
presented.
(d) Extent of relief to be awarded. - A judgment rendered against a party in default shall neither
exceed the amount or be different in kind from that prayed for nor award unliquidated damages.
(e) Where no defaults allowed. - If the defending party In an action for annulment or declaration of
nullity of marriage or for legal separation fails to answer, the court shall order the Solicitor
General or his or her deputized public prosecutor, to investigate whether or not a collusion
between the parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to
it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated.
• The rule on default under the 1964 Rules of Court is substantially amended as follows:
1. The defendant must be notified of the motion to declare him in default and of the order of default.
2. Upon declaration of default, the court shall render judgment on the basis of the complaint.
3. However, the court may, in its discretion, require the plaintiff to present evidence before rendering
judgment.
4. The party in default is entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings, but not to take part in the trial.
5. He may file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default at any time after notice (not
discovery) thereof and before judgment.
6. When a complaint states a common cause of action against several defendants, some of whom
answer and the others do not but the answer alleges a common defense, the court shall try the
case against all upon the answer filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented.
The rule that the answer of the defendants who were not declared in default should be considered
as the answer of those who were defaulted does not apply where the defenses of the answering
defendants were personal to them, such as the defense of forgery.
7. No unliquidated damages may be awarded. In the event the court, motu proprio or on motion of
the claimant, orders the submission of evidence, unliquidated damages may be awarded on the
basis of such evidence.
I. Requisites Before a Party May be Declared in Default
1. The court has validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defending party either by service
of summons or voluntary appearance;
2. The defending party failed to file the answer within the time allowed therefor;
3. The claiming party filed a motion asking the court to declare the defending party in default;
4. The defending party must be notified of the motion to declare him in default;
5. The claiming party must prove that the defending party has failed to answer within the period
provided by the Rule; and
6. The motion to declare the defending party in default must be heard pursuant to Section 5, Rule 15
of the 2019 Amendments.
• It is not enough that the defendant fails to answer the complaint within the reglementary period.
The trial court cannot mot proprio declare a defendant in default. The Rules of Court requires the
filing of a motion and notice of such motion to the defending party. In the absence of such motion,
the defending party's answer may still be admitted even if filed beyond the reglementary period.
But, a plaintiff who fails or chooses not to answer a compulsory counterclaim may not be declared
in default, principally because the issues raised in the counterclaim are deemed automatically
joined by the allegations of the complaint.
II. Where No Defaults are Allowed
1. In an action for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage.

2. In an action for legal separation
• If the defendant in these cases fails to file an answer, the court shall order the Solicitor General or
his or her deputized public prosecutor to investigate whether or not a collusion between the
parties exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to it that the
evidence submitted is not fabricated.
III. Consequence of Failure to File an Answer
• A defendant who fails to file an answer loses his standing in court.

• A defendant who fails to file an answer may, upon motion, be declared by the court in default.
Loss of standing in court, the forfeiture of one's right as a party litigant, contestant or legal
adversary, is the consequence of an order of default. A party in default loses his right to present
his defense, control the proceedings, and examine or cross-examine witnesses. He has no right to
expect that his pleadings would be acted upon by the court nor may he object to or refute
evidence or motions filed against him.
IV. Remedies of a Party Declared in Default
1. The defendant in default may, at any time after notice thereof and before judgment, file a motion
under oath to set aside the order of default on the ground that his failure to answer was due to
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense under
Section 3(b), Rule 9;
2. If the judgment has already been rendered when the defendant discovered the default, but before
the same has become final and executory, he may file a motion for new trial under Section 1(a) of
Rule 37;
3. If the defendant discovered the default after the judgment has become final and executory, he
may file a petition for relief under Section 1 of Rule 38; and
4. He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the
law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him under Section
2 of Rule 41; or
5. A petition for certiorari to declare the nullity of a judgment by default is also available if the trial
court improperly declared a party in default, or even if the trial court properly declared a party in
default, if grave abuse of discretion attended such declaration.
V. Effect of Order of Default
• It is evident from the foregoing rule that even when a defendant is already declared in default, he
is entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings. Default, therefore, is not meant to punish the
defendant, but to enforce the prompt filing of the answer to the complaint. Its existence is justified
on the ground that it is the one final expedient to induce defendant to join issue upon the
allegations tendered by the plaintiff, and to do so without unnecessary delay.
• While, concededly, a defending party declared in default loses his standing in the trial court and
his right to adduce evidence and to present his defense, this, however, does not impliedly suggest
a loss of all his/her rights in the stages of the case after the default judgment. This can be clearly
inferred from the wordings of Section 3, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Court.
• Mere non-appearance of defendants at an ordinary hearing and to adduce evidence does not
constitute default, when they have already filed their answer to the complaint within the
reglementary period. It is error to default a defendant after the answer had already been filed. It
should be borne in mind that the policy of the law is to have every litigant's case tried on the merits
as much as possible; it is for this reason that judgments by default are frowned upon.
VI. Grounds for Order of Default
1. Failure to file a responsive pleading within the reglementary period, and not failure to appear at
the hearing;
2. Failure to appear at a pre-trial conference; and
3. Refusal to obey modes of discovery, the court may render a judgment by default against the
disobedient party even if the defendant had filed his answer.
• Under the above grounds, the effects of a default on the part of the defendant are followed, that is,
the plaintiff shall be allowed to present evidence ex pare and a judgment based thereon may be
rendered against the defendant.
RULE 10
AMENDMED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS
Section 1
Amendments in general. – Pleadings may be amended by adding or striking out an allegation or the
name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate
allegation or description in any other respect, so that the actual merits of the controversy may speedily
be determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner.
• The prevailing rule on the amendment of pleadings is one of liberality, with the end of obtaining
substantial justice for the parties. However, the option of a party-litigant to amend a pleading is not
without limitation. If the purpose is to set up a cause of action not existing at the time of the filing of
the complaint, amendment is not allowed. If no right existed at the time the action was
commenced, the suit cannot be maintained, even if the right of action may have accrued
thereafter.
Section 2
Amendments as a matter of right. – A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at any
time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10)
calendar days after it is served.
I. When a Matter of Right
• A plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of right at any time before the answer (which
is the responsive pleading) is served upon him. The defendant has the right to amend his answer
before the reply is served on him. A reply may be amended within ten (10) calendar days after it is
served. But since a rejoinder may be filed when an actionable document is attached to the reply
under the amended Section 10 of Rule 6, it should very well be that the reply may be amended
before service of rejoinder within 10 calendar days from service of the reply.
• Where some but not all the defendants have answered, the plaintiff may still amend its complaint
once, as a matter of right, in respect to claims asserted solely against the non-answering
defendant, but not as to claims asserted against the other defendants.
II. An answer is a responsive pleading, but a motion to dismiss is not.
• Responsive pleadings are those which seek affirmative relief and/or set up defenses, like an
answer. A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.
• Hence, a plaintiff may amend his complaint as a matter of right after the filing of a motion to
dismiss by the defendant, but before the service of an answer. There is, therefore, no need for the
court to allow the admission of an amended complaint that is filed after the defendant files a
motion to dismiss but before the service of an answer.
III. Amendment is a matter of right before an order of dismissal becomes final and before answer.
• It is settled that an amendment of a complaint may be allowed even if an order for its dismissal
has been issued, as long as the motion to amend is filed before the dismissal order becomes final.
• The plaintiff may file an amended complaint even after the original complaint was ordered
dismissed if the order of dismissal is not yet final and the amendment is done before the answer.
• In one case, the issue raised is whether a complaint may still be amended as a matter of right
before an answer has been filed, even if there is a pending petition for certiorari assailing the
denial of a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court ruled that the right granted to the plaintiff under
procedural law to amend the complaint before an answer has been served is not precluded by the
filing of a motion to dismiss the complaint or any other proceeding contesting its sufficiency.
IV. Amendment cannot confer jurisdiction.
• An amendment cannot be allowed where the court has no jurisdiction over the original complaint
and the purpose of the amendment is to confer jurisdiction upon the court, or where the action
originally pleaded in the complaint was outside the jurisdiction of the court. Where the court of
origin had no jurisdiction over the original complaint in the first place, amendments may not be
had. It is axiomatic that before an amendment can be permitted, the trial court must have acquired
jurisdiction over the case in the first instance.
V. When another summons must be served on defendant; when unnecessary.
• If new causes of action are alleged in an amended complaint filed before the defendant has
appeared in court, another summons must be served on the defendant with the amended
complaint, otherwise, the court has no jurisdiction to render judgment on the new causes of action.
However, if the defendant has already appeared in court, a new summons is not necessary, and
the defendant may be served a copy of the amended complaint either by personal service, by
mail, or by substituted service, in accordance with the Rules of Court.
• After the defendant has appeared by virtue of a summons, and presented a motion to dismiss, he
may be served with the amended complaint, without need of another summons and in the same
form and manner that ordinary motions or papers are served.
Section 3
Amendments by leave of court. – Except as provided in the next preceding section, substantial
amendments may be made only upon leave of court. But such leave shall be refused if it appears to the
court that the motion was made with intent to delay or confer jurisdiction on the court, or the pleading
stated no cause of action from the beginning which could be amended. Orders of the court upon the
matters provided in this section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse
party, and an opportunity to be heard.
I. Amendments Liberally Allowed in the Furtherance of Justice; Limitations
• The amendments to pleadings are favored, and should be liberally allowed in furtherance of
justice. This liberality is greatest in the early stages of a lawsuit, decreases as it progresses, and
changes at times to a strictness amounting to a prohibition. The granting of leave to file amended
pleadings is a matter peculiarly within the sound discretion of the trial court. This discretion will not
be disturbed on appeal, except in case of an evident abuse thereof.
• But the rule allowing amendments to pleadings is subject to the limitations that the amendments
are not made to:
1. Delay the action;

2. Confer jurisdiction on the court; or
3. Provide a cause of action where the pleading stated no cause of action from the beginning.
II. An answer containing a general denial may be amended so as to contain a specific denial.
• The admission of the material averments of the complaint is not irrevocable and, like any other
admission in court, may be withdrawn with leave of court if there is a justifiable reason therefor
and if the interests of justice so require. An answer consisting of a general denial may, with leave
of court, be so amended as to do away with the implied statutory admission.
III. Amendment by leave of court should be with justifiable ground.
• Where amendment is not a matter of right, a bare assertion of a desire to amend the pleading
because certain matters have not been therein alleged, or the submission of an amended one,
without more, is obviously not sufficient. It is needful to state to the Court some reasonable ground
justifying its exercise of discretion to allow amendment. Indeed, the Rules elsewhere provide that
judicial admissions "cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through
palpable mistake." It is, thus, incumbent upon a party desiring to amend his pleading to furnish the
Court with some adequate foundation for it to grant leave to amend the pleading.
IV. A plaintiff cannot, after defendant's answer, amend his complaint by changing the cause of
action or adding a new one without previously obtaining leave of court.
• It is a truism in legal procedure that what determines the nature of an action filed in the courts are
the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of the action. The facts averred as a
defense in the defendant's answer do not and can' not determine or change the nature of the
plaintiff's action. The theory adopted by the plaintiff in his complaint is one thing, and that of the
defendant in his answer is another. The plaintiff has to establish or prove his theory or cause of
action in order to obtain the remedy he prays for; and the defendant, his theory, if necessary, in
order to defeat the claim or action of the plaintiff. This being so, the plaintiff cannot, after
defendant's answer, amend his complaint by changing the cause of action or adding a new one
without previously obtaining leave of court; otherwise, the amended complaint may be stricken off
the record.
V. Lack of plaintiff's capacity to sue may be raised by amendment after both parties had already
rested their cases.
• It is discretionary in the court which has cognizance of a case to allow or not the amendment of an
answer for the purpose of questioning the personality of the plaintiff to bring the action, even after
the parties had rested their cases, if it causes no injustice to any of the parties, and the exercise of
said discretion will not be disturbed unless there is an evident abuse thereof.
• Under the new Section 12(a), Rule 8 of the 2019 Amendments, lack of legal capacity to sue is an
affirmative defense which may be resolved by the court mot proprio within thirty calendar days
from the filing of the answer. And under paragraph (b) thereof, it must be noted that the failure to
raise this affirmative defense at the earliest opportunity shall constitute a waiver thereof.
VI. A cause of action which has not yet accrued at the time of filing of complaint; when amended
or supplemental pleadings proper.
• At the time the action was brought, the amount secured by the mortgage, which it sought to fore-
close, was not due. While the action was pending and before trial, the money became due. This
fact, occurring after the action was commenced, could not be set up by supplementary complaint,
and the action must fail because it was prematurely brought.
• The cause of action must exist at the time the action was begun, and the plaintiff will not be
allowed by an amendment to introduce a cause of action which did not exist when the action was
commenced. That the cause of action accrues after the action is commenced and while it is
pending is of no moment.
• In an obligation payable in installments with no acceleration clause, inasmuch as a cause of action
exists with respect to all the installments due and unpaid at the time of the filing of the complaint, a
supplemental complaint may be filed for installments subsequently accruing.
VII. A new cause of action included in an amended complaint does not relate back to the date of
the filing of the original complaint under the statute of limitations.
• The rule is well established, that an amendment to a complaint which introduces a new or a
different cause of action, making a new or different demand, is equivalent to a fresh suit upon a
new cause of action and the statute of limitations continues to run until the amendment is filed
Where the plaintiff in a real action omits to describe in his original petition all of the parcels of land
detained from him by the defendant, he cannot, by an amendment to his petition made after the
statute of limitations has run as to the land omitted, include such omitted land and have the
amendment relate to the filing of the petition so as to defeat the plea of the statute of limitations as
to the land brought in by the amendment.
• This rule is similar to that of the inclusion of an additional defendant in an amended complaint.
• But if the amendment merely supplements, amplifies or corrects the facts alleged in the original
complaint without constituting a new cause of action, it relates back to the date of the filing of the
original complaint.
Section 4
Formal amendments. – A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or
typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative
or on motion, provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party.
I. Formal Amendments
• Formal amendments include not only a correction of a defect in the designation of the parties, but
also other clerical errors. These may be corrected by the court mot proprio or on motion.
• The courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings in order that the real
controversies between the parties are presented and the case decided on the merits without
unnecessary delay. This rule applies with more reason and with greater force when the
amendment sought to be made refers to a mere matter of form and no substantial rights are
prejudiced.
II. Amendment to cure defect of party plaintiff may be made in the Supreme Court even after final
decision is rendered.
• In a case, the Supreme Court did not dismiss the case for plaintiff's failure to join her husband, nor
the case remanded to the court below and a new trial ordered. Instead, the Court ordered the
amendment of the complaint to cure the defect of party plaintiffs, after final decision was rendered,
as explicitly authorized by Section 11, Rule 3 and Section 3, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. A
second action would be but a repetition of the first and would involve both parties, plaintiffs and
defendant, in much additional expense and would cause much delay, in that way defeating the
purpose of the rules which is the speedy and inexpensive determination of the actual merits
without regard to technicalities.
• The Supreme Court also ruled that a complaint may be amended by substituting the real party in
interest as party plaintiff after case had been submitted to the Supreme Court for decision upon
the merits.
Section 5
No amendment necessary to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. – When issues not
raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated
in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. No amendment of such pleadings deemed
amended is necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence.
• The amended Section 5 now categorically provides that the amendment of pleadings deemed
amended is no longer necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence presented on issues
not raised in the said pleadings.
• The failure of a party to amend a pleading to conform to the evidence adduced during trial does
not preclude adjudication by the court on the basis of such evidence which may embody new
issues not raised in the pleadings. Although, the pleading may not have been amended to
conform to the evidence submitted during trial, judgment may nonetheless be rendered, not simply
on the basis of the issues alleged but also on the issues discussed and the assertions of fact
proved in the course of the trial. So long as the basic requirements of fair play had been met, as
where the litigants were given full opportunity to support their respective contentions and to object
to or refute each other's evidence, the court may validly treat the pleadings as if they had been
amended to conform to the evidence and proceed to adjudicate on the basis of all the evidence
before it.
• This section is not applicable if no evidence whatsoever is introduced. The above provision is
premised on the fact that evidence has been introduced on an issue not raised by the pleadings
without any objection thereto being raised by the adverse party.
I. Issues Not Raised in Pleadings Tried Without Objection
• When a party presents evidence of an essential fact not alleged in his pleading and the adverse
party does not object to it, that is, where an issue not raised by the pleading is tried by express or
implied consent of the parties, it is not necessary to amend the pleading in order to make it
conform to the evidence. In such a case, the result of the trial will not be affected because of the
consent of both parties. However, if desired, the court may, on motion of any party at any time,
even after judgment, order the amendment of pleading to cause it to conform to the evidence.
II. Issues Not Raised in Pleadings Tried with Objection
• If the adverse party objects to the presentation of evidence of an essential fact not alleged in the
pleading, the court may sustain the objection. But the court shall freely allow the pleadings to be
amended when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the
admission of such evidence would not prejudice the objecting party in maintaining his action or
defense upon the merits. After the amendment has been allowed and made, the evidence
objected to may be presented, for in such case, the fact to be proved is already alleged in the
pleading.
• The amended Section 5 has deleted the provision under the old Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of
Court which states that: "If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the
issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so
with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will
be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made.”
• The author believes that the deleted portion remains applicable when the presentation of evidence
on issues not raised in the pleading is objected to by the adverse party.
Section 6
Supplemental pleadings. – Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon
such terms as are just, permit him or her to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions,
occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.
The adverse party may plead thereto within ten (10) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the
supplemental pleading.
• As its very name denotes, a supplemental pleading serves to bolster or add something to the
primary pleading. Its usual office is to set up new facts which justify, enlarge or change the kind of
relief with respect to the same subject matter as the controversy referred to in the original
complaint. The purpose of the supplemental pleading is to bring into the records new facts which
will enlarge or change the kind of relief to which the plaintiff is entitled; hence, any supplemental
facts which further develop the original right of action, or extend to vary the relief, are available by
way of supplemental complaint even though they themselves constitute a right of action.
• Under Section 6, Rule 10, the court "may" admit supplemental pleadings, but the admission of
these pleadings remains in the sound discretion of the court. These pleadings may even be filed
before the appellate court.
• The adverse party should file an answer to a supplemental complaint inasmuch as his original
answer does not ordinarily cover the subsequent events.
• As a general rule, leave will be granted to a party who desires to file a supplemental pleading that
alleges any material fact which happened or came within the party's knowledge after the original
pleading was filed, such being the office of a supplemental pleading. The application of the rule
would ensure that the entire controversy might be settled in one action, avoid unnecessary
repetition of effort and unwarranted expense of litigants, broaden the scope of the issues in an
action owing to the light thrown on it by facts, events and occurrences which have accrued after
the filing of the original pleading, and bring into record the facts enlarging or charging the kind of
relief to which plaintiff is entitled. It is the policy of the law to grant relief as far as possible for
wrongs complained of, growing out of the same transaction and thus put an end to litigation.
I. Distinction Between Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
• Amended pleadings are proper in order to allege facts which occurred prior to the filing of the
original pleadings, but which for some reason, such as oversight, inadvertence, or subsequent
discovery, were not alleged therein.
• Supplemental pleadings are proper in order to allege facts which occurred after the filing of the
original pleadings.
• Amended pleadings are designed to include matters occurring before the filing of the bill but either
overlooked or not known at the time, whereas supplemental pleadings are designed to cover
matters subsequently occurring but pertaining to the original cause.
II. Cause of Action Accruing After Filing of Original Complaint
• A cause of action which accrued after the filing of the original complaint may, in the discretion of
the court, be pleaded in a supplemental complaint if there was a valid and subsisting cause of
action at the time the original complaint was filed.
• The supplemental complaint should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits, particularly if the
cause of action subsequently accruing is related to the original cause of action, such as
subsequent installments of a debt.
III. Supplemental Answer After Judgment
• A supplemental answer filed after judgment has been rendered should be allowed, where the
defendant invokes therein a fact which, although known to him at the time he submitted his
answer, he justifiably could not then assert because of the danger involved. Consequently, a new
trial was in order.
• However, a supplemental answer cannot be filed after the judgment has become final. After final
judgment has been rendered, the action is closed and the time for amendments is passed.
• Although in a case, it was held that the complaint may be amended in the Supreme Court even
after final decision was rendered, it was only to cure the defect of party plaintiffs, without any
prejudice to the defendants. Where, however, damages already finally disallowed by the Court of
Appeals are prayed for in the supplemental answer filed after the record was remanded to the
lower court, with the result that a final judgment is set to be altered on a substantial matter, the
supplemental answer should be inadmissible.
Section 7
Filing of amended pleadings. – When any pleading is amended, a new copy of the entire pleading,
incorporating the amendments, which shall be indicated by appropriate marks, shall be filed.
• Unlike a supplemental pleading which may allege separately the events that occurred after the
original pleading, an amended pleading should incorporate the events which occurred prior to the
original pleading in a new copy of the entire pleading.
• The new copy of the entire pleading should incorporate the amendments, which shall be indicated
by appropriate marks, and this copy shall be filed. The purpose of the marking is to enable the
adverse party and the court to know which are the amendments without having to search for them.
• However, failure to use the appropriate markings for the deletions and intercalations will not affect
any substantive right. Certainly, their absence cannot cause the denial of any substantive right.
Section 8
Effect of amended pleadings. – An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends.
However, admissions in superseded pleadings may be offered in evidence against the pleader, and
claims or defenses alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.
• Under Section 8, Rule 10, an amended complaint supersedes and takes the place of an original
one. As a consequence, the original complaint is deemed withdrawn and abandoned and no
longer considered part of the record; it ceases to perform any further function as a pleading.
• An original complaint once amended, loses its character as a judicial admission, which would have
required no proof, and becomes merely an extrajudicial admission, the admissibility of which, as
evidence, requires its formal offer.
• A statement in the original pleading, if desired to be utilized, must be adduced and offered in
evidence.
• Under Section 1, Rule 10, an amendment is done by adding or striking out an allegation or the
name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or a mistaken or inadequate
allegation or description in any other respect. A perusal of the original and the substitute third-
party complaints shows that their averments are substantially the same, and that the substitute
third-party complaint did not strike out any allegation of the prior one. Section 8, Rule 10 of the
Rules of Court, which states that the amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends
is, thus, not applicable, and the substitution of the third-party complaint could not produce the
effect that an amendment of an existing pleading produces.
RULE 11
WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
Section 1
Answer to the complaint. – The defendant shall file his or her answer to the complaint within thirty (30)
calendar days after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court.
• The date of the service of the summons is excluded in the computation of the fifteen (now thirty)
calendar days. And the amended section makes it clear that what are referred to are calendar
days, which means that Saturdays and Sundays and legal holidays are included in counting the
thirty days.
• In cases of extraterritorial service of summons under Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court,
the defendant must be given not less than sixty (60) calendar days after notice within which to
answer. In case of summons by publication, the sixty days are computed from the date of the last
publication.
• In cases covered by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, such as ejectment cases, the
defendant shall file his answer to the complaint within ten (10) days from service of summons.
This should also mean 10 calendar days.
Section 2
Answer of a defendant foreign private juridical entity. – Where the defendant is a foreign private juridical
entity and service of summons is made on the government official designated by law to receive the
same, the answer shall be filed within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of summons by such entity.
• If summons is served on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, the
time to answer shall be fifteen (15) (now thirty [30]) calendar days after service of summons. If
summons is served on the government official designated by law to receive the same, it is the duty
of that government official to send a copy of the summons to the home office of said defendant,
and the time to answer shall be thirty (30) (now sixty [60]) calendar days after receipt thereof by
the home office.
• It should be understood that service of summons to the designated government official should be
made only in the absence of a designated resident agent.
I. Government Officials Designated by Law to Receive Summons
A. Foreign Corporation
• If the corporation ceases to transact business in the Philippines, or is without any resident agent in
the Philippines on whom any summons or other legal process may be served, then service of any
summons or other legal process may be made upon the Securities and Exchange Commission in
any action or proceeding arising out of any business or transaction which occurred in the
Philippines, and such service shall have the same force and effect as if made upon the duly
authorized officers of the corporation at its home office.
• Whenever such service of summons or other process is made upon the SEC, it shall, within ten
(10) days thereafter, transmit by mail a copy of such summons or other legal process to the
corporation at its home or principal office. The sending of such copy by the Commission shall be
necessary part of and shall complete such service.
B. Foreign Banking Corporation
• In the absence of the agent or head or should there be no person authorized by the bank upon
whom service of summons, processes and all legal notices may be made, service of summons,
processes and legal notices may be made upon the Bangko Sentral Deputy Governor In-Charge
of the supervising and examining departments and such service shall be as effective as if made
upon the bank or its duly authorized agent or head. The said Deputy Governor shall register and
transmit by mail to the president or the secretary of the bank at its head or principal office a copy,
duly certified by him, of the summons, process, or notice. The sending of such copy of the
summons, process, or notice shall be a necessary part of the services and shall complete the
service. The registry receipt of mailing shall be prima face evidence of the transmission of the
summons, process or notice.
C. Foreign Insurance Company
• If the foreign insurance company cease to transact business in the Philippines or shall be without
any resident agent on whom any notice, proof of loss, summons, or legal process may be served,
then in any action or proceeding arising out of any business or transaction which occurred in the
Philippines, service of summons, or other legal process may be made upon the Insurance
Commissioner, and that such service shall have the same force and effect as if made upon the
company. The Commissioner then must, within ten (10) days thereafter, transmit by mail, postage
paid, a copy of summons or other legal process to the company at its home or principal office. The
sending of such copy by the Commissioner shall be a necessary part of the service of the
summons or other legal process.
Section 3
Answer to amended complaint. – When the plaintiff files an amended complaint as a matter of right, the
defendant shall answer the same within thirty (30) calendar days after being served with a copy thereof.
Where its filling is not a matter of right, the defendant shall answer the amended complaint within fifteen
(15) calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same. An answer earlier filed may serve as the
answer to the amended complaint if no new answer is filed.
This Rule shall apply to the answer to an amended counterclaim, amended cross-claim, amended third
(fourth, etc.)-party complaint, and amended complaint in-intervention.
• A complaint may be amended before or after an answer has been filed.
I. Amendment Before Answer
• The filing of an amended complaint before service of a responsive pleading is a matter of right and
leave of court is not necessary. Hence, the defendant has fifteen (15) days (now thirty [30]
calendar days) after receiving a copy of the amended complaint within which to file his answer. If
he fails to do so, he may be declared in default.
• A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. Hence, there is no need for the court to allow the
admission of an amended complaint which is filed after the defendant files a motion to dismiss but
before the filing of an answer.
II. Amendment After Answer
• After service of the answer, the plaintiff will have to obtain leave of court to file an amended
complaint. Leave of court to file a pleading or motion is obtained by filing a motion for leave
accompanied by the pleading or motion sought to be admitted. The plaintiff should serve on the
defendant and file with the court the motion for leave to file an amended complaint with the
amended complaint attached to the motion. If the motion is granted, the defendant shall file his
answer within ten (10) (now fifteen [15]) calendar days from receipt of the notice of the order
admitting the amended complaint. If no new answer is filed, his original answer may serve as an
answer to the amended complaint; hence, he cannot be declared in default. However, new
material allegations in the amended complaint which are not specifically denied are deemed
admitted.
III. The amended complaint must be served on defendant; otherwise, the period to answer does
not begin to run.
• In a case, the defendant was not served a copy of the amended complaint, which amendment
consisted of a copy of a document referred to in the complaint. It was held that the period for filing
an answer did not run and the defendant could not be declared in default.
Section 4
Answer to counterclaim or cross-claim. – A counterclaim or cross-claim must be answered within twenty
(20) calendar days from service.
• A compulsory counterclaim that merely reiterates special defenses which are deemed
controverted even without a reply, or raises issues which are deemed automatically joined by the
allegations of the complaint, need not be answered.
• However, a compulsory counterclaim which raises issues not covered by the complaint should be
answered within twenty (20) calendar days from service thereof; otherwise, the plaintiff may be
declared in default. Recall that the plaintiff to the original complaint is the defendant to the
counterclaim.
Section 5
Answer to third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint. - The time to answer a third (fourth, etc.)-party complaint
shall be governed by the same rule as the answer to the complaint.
• The contents of an answer to a third-party complaint are provided for in Section 13, Rule 6 of the
Rules of Court. The time to file such an answer is thirty (30) calendar days from service of the
summons to which are attached copies of the complaint and the third-party complaint.
• A third-party defendant may make a common cause with the third-party plaintiff against the
plaintiff's claim. For example, when the principal is brought in as a third-party defendant by the
surety in an action against the latter on the bond, the principal may adopt the defense of the
surety that the bond had expired prior to the accrual of any liability thereunder.
Section 6
Reply. – A reply, if allowed under Section 10, Rule 6 hereof, may be filed within fifteen (15) calendar
days from service of the pleading responded to.
Section 7
Answer to supplemental complaint. – A supplemental complaint may be answered within twenty (20)
calendar days from notice of the order admitting the same, unless a different period is fixed by the court.
The answer to the complaint shall serve as the answer to the supplemental complaint if no new or
supplemental answer is filed.
• As in the case of the filing of an amended pleading with leave of court, the supplemental complaint
is attached to the motion for leave to file the same. If the court grants the motion, the answer to
the supplemental complaint may be filed within twenty (20) calendar days from notice of the order
admitting the same.
• The answer to the original complaint shall serve as answer to the supplemental complaint in the
sense that the defendant may not be declared in default for not filing an answer to the
supplemental complaint. However, new material allegations in the supplemental complaint which
are not specifically denied are deemed admitted.
Section 8
Existing counterclaim or cross-claim. – A compulsory counterclaim or a cross-claim that a defending
party has at the time he or she files his or her answer shall be contained therein.
• An existing compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim should be included in the answer. If it is not

included, it shall be barred, unless with leave of court, it is set up in an amended answer before
judgment.
• An existing permissive counterclaim may also be included in the answer or, with leave of court, in
an amended answer before judgment. However, even if it is not set up, it can be the subject of a
separate action.
Section 9
Counterclaim or cross-claim arising after answer. – A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either
matured or was acquired by a party after serving his or her pleading may, with the permission of the
court, be presented as a counterclaim or a cross-claim by supplemental pleading before judgment.
• A counterclaim or a cross-claim which either matured or was acquired by a party after serving his
pleading may, with leave of court, be set up in a supplemental answer before judgment. This is
akin to a supplemental complaint which contains claims maturing after the original complaint has
been filed.
• Such a counterclaim or cross-claim is not compulsory. Thus, a party who fails to interpose a
counterclaim although arising out of, or is necessarily connected with, the transaction or
occurrence of the plaintiff's suit but which did not exist or mature at the time said party filed his
answer is not thereby barred from interposing such claim in a future litigation.
Section 10
Omitted counterclaim or cross-claim. – When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim or a cross-claim
through oversight, Inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires, he or she may, by leave
of court, set up the counterclaim or cross-claim by amendment before judgment.
• This applies to a compulsory counterclaim or cross-claim as well as to a permissive counterclaim.

• There are two requisites for a court to allow an omitted counterclaim or cross-claim by
amendment:
1. There was oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice requires; and
2. The amendment is made before judgment.
Section 11
Extension of time to fille an answer. – A defendant may, for meritorious reasons, be granted an
additional period of not more than thirty (30) calendar days to file an answer. A defendant is only allowed
to file one (1) motion for extension of time to file an answer.
A motion for extension to file any pleading, other than an answer, is prohibited and considered a mere
scrap of paper. The court, however, may allow any other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these
Rules.
• Previously, any kind of pleading may be the subject of a motion for extension. However, the 2019
Amendments limits the motion for extension only to the filing of an answer. The purpose is to limit
the period for litigation and to speed up the disposition of cases.
• A motion for extension of time must be filed before the expiration of the time sought to be
extended. If the last day of the period for filing a pleading falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal
holiday, any extension of time to file the same should be counted from the expiration of the period
regardless of the fact that said due date is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
I. Court may accept answer though filed late.
• It is within the discretion of the trial court to permit the filing of defendant's answer even beyond
the reglementary period, provided there is justification for the belated action, and there was no
showing that the defendant intended to delay the case. The rule is that the defendant's answer
should be admitted where it is filed before a declaration of default and no prejudice is caused to
the plaintiff. But where an answer has been filed, there can be no declaration of default anymore.
• When the late filing of defendant's answer was indisputably due to illness, constituting accident
over which she had no control: that she appeared to have a meritorious defense; and that she
filed her answer only one day after the motion to declare her in default; that the plaintiff was not
deprived of any substantial right, nor was there evidence of intent to unduly delay the case, the
lower court committed error in refusing to admit defendant's answer and declaring her in default.
RULE 12
BILL OF PARTICULARS
Section 1
When applied for; purpose. – Before responding to a pleading, a party may move for a definite
statement or for a bill of particulars of any matter, which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or
particularity, to enable him or her properly to prepare his or her responsive pleading. If the pleading is a
reply, the motion must be filed within ten (10) calendar days from service thereof. Such motion shall
point out the defects complained of, the paragraphs wherein they are contained, and the details desired.
I. Remedy for an Insufficient or Vague Cause of Action
• If a complaint contains insufficient cause of action or it is vague, the defendant should file a motion
for bill of particulars and not a motion to dismiss. It is indeed the better rule that, pleadings, as well
as remedial laws, should be liberally construed so that the litigants may have ample opportunity to
prove their respective claims so as to avoid possible denial of substantial justice due to legal
technicalities.
• Under the 1964 Rules of Court, a party may move for a more definite statement or for a bill of
particulars of any matter which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable
him properly to prepare his responsive pleading or to prepare for trial. The phrase "or to prepare
for trial" was omitted in the 1997 Rules of Court because the purpose of a motion for a bill of
particulars is only to enable a party to prepare a responsive pleading, not to prepare for trial. In the
case of a reply to which there is no responsive pleading permitted, the purpose of the motion is to
have the reply clarified.
• An action cannot be dismissed upon the ground that the complaint is vague, ambiguous or
indefinite, because the defendant in such case may ask for more particulars (Rule 12) or he may
compel the plaintiff to disclose more relevant facts under the different methods of discovery
provided by the Rules of Court. The defendant may also obtain the fullest possible knowledge of
the facts through the pre-trial procedure.
• The allowance of a motion for a more definitive statement rests with the sound discretion of the
court.
• That a party's co-defendants were able to file their respective answers to the complaint does not
mean that the party will be able to file an equally intelligent answer since the answering
defendant's defense might be personal to him.
II. When Bill of Particulars is Proper
• Phrases like "in flagrant breach of public trust and of their fiduciary obligations as public officers
with grave and scandalous abuse of right and power and in brazen violation of the Constitution
and laws," "unjust enrichment," "embarked upon a systematic plan to accumulate ill-gotten
wealth," "arrogated unto himself all powers of the government," are accusations by generalization.
Hence, a bill of particulars is proper.
• While some of the allegations may lack particulars, and are in the form of conclusions of law, the
elements of a cause of action may be present. Where the allegations of a complaint are vague, in-
definite, or in the form of conclusion, its dismissal is not proper for the respondents may ask for
more particulars.
III. When Bill of Particulars is Not Proper
• A party may not obtain a bill of particulars on the ground that he does not have the necessary
information to prepare a satisfactory responsive pleading, where the complaint itself is clear and
unambiguous. It is obvious that the fault, if any, is not in the allegations of the complaint but in the
defendant's lack of adequate information. In such case, the defendant is not entitled to a more
definite statement or a bill of particulars. Moreover, the defendant may state that he is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in
the complaint and this shall have the effect of denial.
• In a case, the Court pronounced that in cases governed by the Interim Rules of Procedure on
Intra-Corporate Controversies, a bill of particulars is a prohibited pleading. It is essential,
therefore, for the complaint to show on its face what are claimed to be the fraudulent corporate
acts if the plaintiff wishes to invoke the court's special commercial jurisdiction.
Section 2
Action by the court. – Upon the filing of the motion, the clerk of court must immediately bring it to the
attention of the court which may either deny or grant it outright, or allow the parties the opportunity to be
heard.
• The motion should be set for hearing. However, to avoid delay, the motion should be immediately
brought to the attention of the court for appropriate action- whether to grant or deny it or hold a
hearing thereon.
Section 3
Compliance with order. – If the motion is granted, either in whole or in part, the compliance therewith
must be effected within ten (10) calendar days from notice of the order, unless a different period is fixed
by the court. The bill of particulars or a more definite statement ordered by the court may be filed either
in a separate or in an amended pleading, serving a copy thereof on the adverse party.
• The bill of particulars must be submitted, either separately or incorporated in an amended

pleading, within ten (10) calendar days from notice of the order granting the motion.
Section 4
Effect of non-compliance. – If the order is not obeyed, or in case of insufficient compliance therewith, the
court may order the striking out of the pleading or the portions thereof to which the order was directed or
make such other order as it deems just.
• The failure of the plaintiff to comply with the order of the court granting a motion for bill of
particulars may be a ground for dismissing the complaint. Such a dismissal, unless made without
prejudice, would be a bar to a subsequent action on the same cause.
Section 5
Stay of period to file responsive pleading. – After service of the bill of particulars or of a more definite
pleading, or after notice of denial of his or her motion, the moving party may file his or her responsive
pleading within the period to which he or she was entitled at the time of filing his or her motion, which
shall not be less than five (5) calendar days in any event.
• If the motion is granted, the moving party may file his responsive pleading within the period
remaining at the time when he filed the motion for bill of particulars, but in any event not less than
five calendar days, counted from service of the bill of particulars or amended pleading. If the
motion is denied, the movant has the same period, counted from notice of denial, within which to
file his responsive pleading.
• The filing of a motion for a bill of particulars suspends the running of the period to file an answer or
a motion to dismiss. it is resumed upon the amended complaint being filed in compliance with the
court's order granting the motion for a bill of particulars.
Section 6
Bill a part of pleading. - A bill of particulars becomes part of the pleading for which it is intended.

03a Assignment 3 - Rules 6-12 - Commentary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

03a Assignment 3 - Rules 6-12 - Commentary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic:

Applicable Provisions: Rules 6-12 (Start) Date:

I. Every pleading shall contain ultimate facts and evidentiary matters.

IV. The Names and Residences of the Parties

V. Exhibits Not Sufficient

I. Additional Affirmative Defenses

II. Negative Defense; Two Kinds of Specific Denial

IV. Plead Affirmative Defenses with Particularity

• In pleading estoppel, the facts constituting estoppel must be alleged.

• A counterclaim is in the nature of a cross-complaint. Although it may be alleged in the answer, it is

II. Example of Counterclaim Not Cognizable by the Regular Courts of Justice

• If the counterclaim is a labor claim, it cannot be interposed as a counterclaim because it is not

III. Requisites of a Permissive Counterclaim

IV. Test to Determine Whether Counterclaim is Compulsory or Permissive

II. Propriety of Cross-Claim, How Raised

A cross-claim may also be filed against an original cross-claimant.

I. Proper Function of Reply

II. When Reply is Not Necessary; Amended or Supplemental Complaint

III. When Reply is Necessary

IV. When Rejoinder may be Filed

V. When Reply is Improper

• A reply to a counterclaim or cross-claim is improper. An answer thereto must be filed instead

• A third-party complaint may be filed by a defendant, in respect to the complaint; by a plaintiff, in

I. Requisites for a Third-Party Action

1. The party to be impleaded must not yet be a party to the action;

II. Nature of a Third-Party Complaint

IV. Leave of Court, How Obtained

V. Allowance of Third-Party Complaint is Discretionary

VI. Grounds to Deny the Allowance of a Third-Party Complaint

VIII. Original claimant may amend pleading.

IX. Effect of Adjudication

1. On an allegation of liability to the defendant;

X. Effect of Dismissal of Complaint on Third-Party Complaint

XI. Cross-Claim versus Counterclaim versus Third-Party Complaint

I. Versus Third-Party Complaint

Their respective participation in the case shall be indicated.

I. Allegations by Express Reference

I. Affiant should be duly authorized to sign the verification.

• The verification shall have the following attestations:

III. Significance of Affiant’s Signature

IV. Basis of Verification

II. Test to Determine Forum Shopping

IV. When Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping Not Required

• Certificate of non-forum shopping is not required in a compulsory counterclaim.

V. Non-Compliance or Defect in Verification Distinguished from Non-Compliance or Defect in

1. Names of witnesses who will be presented to prove a party's claim or defense;

I. Ultimate Facts, Evidence, and Law

I. Alternative Causes of Action or Defenses versus Alternative Reliefs

II. Alternative Allegations

IV. Inconsistent Defenses

I. Attempt to Compromise a Condition Precedent

II. Specific Negative Averment or Specific Denial

I. Actionable Document; How Pleaded

• An actionable document is a written instrument or document on which an action or defense is

II. Examples of Actionable Documents

• A promissory note in an action to collect the amount thereof.

I. Genuineness versus Due Execution

II. How to Deny Genuineness and Due Execution of Actionable Document

III. A Denial Under Oath that is Deemed a General Denial

IV. What Admission of Genuineness and Due Execution Means

V. Defenses Waived by Admission

1. Forgery of the signature

VI. Defenses Not Waived

VII. When Specific Denial Need Not be Under Oath